Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,

That Charlotte Atkins be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Graham Allen be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bicentenary

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [142000]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): None.

Mr. Swayne: I find that remarkably shocking. Does the Under-Secretary agree that a nation needs to have a sense of its history for its self-respect? Will he, however, confirm that this rotten Government have no intention whatever of celebrating the bicentenary of the United Kingdom? Has not the Minister for patriotism got anything to say about that?

Mr. Hanson: The bicentenary of the 1707 Act of Union, which united the Westminster Parliament with Scotland, was in 1907. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into effect in 1922, and I do not really expect to live to see its bicentenary in due course. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the bicentenary of the 1801 Act of Union falls next year, and the Government will recognise the significance of that. The First Secretary and I have not discussed the matter.

Mr. Barry Jones: In Wales and Shotton, steelworkers will not be celebrating; they are appalled at the prospect of further redundancies. Does my hon. Friend know that steelworkers are saying that it appears that redundancies are asked of us on this side of

the channel, but that in Holland there are fewer? Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government might help steelworkers in Wales and at Shotton in my constituency?

Mr. Hanson: I praise the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend, whose question involves the interests of his constituency. I represent a neighbouring constituency, and he and I know that steel is important to north-east Wales. He raised an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in discussions with British Steel and Cores and with the steel trade unions and Mike Lehey about those matters. I know that he hopes to raise the matter again with Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corns. I recognise that steel is important to Wales in the north, in the south and in the valleys. We shall do what we can to raise those issues on behalf of the Government.

Children's Commissioner

Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142001]

Mr. Martyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about extending the power of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [142002]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am pleased to tell the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill was published yesterday. That Bill has been widely welcomed and, yesterday, in the National Assembly for Wales, leaders of all political parties in Wales pledged their support to me when I outlined the legislative programme in their Chamber.

Mrs. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he and the Government moved, following the calls by various organisations for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner. The Waterhouse report, which was published in February this year, recommended the creation of the post. I stress how pleased we were that amendments to the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000 improved that legislation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who campaigned for the creation of the position. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commissioner who was appointed last week, Mr. Peter Clarke, will radically improve the welfare and rights of children in Wales?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I can do that. My hon. Friend is aware that the establishment of a Children's Commissioner was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party in the 1999 Assembly elections, and that that was supported by other parties in Wales. It was the first recommendation of the Waterhouse report. As a north Wales Member, I know that my hon. Friend is particularly appreciative of that. The Bill will extend the powers of the commissioner to include public bodies that are overseen by the Assembly in Wales, and I welcome the appointment of Mr. Peter Clarke as the first children's champion in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid publication of the Children's Commissioner


for Wales Bill yesterday is proof that the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government are working together well for the people of Wales? Is not that an example of the way in which the Government can respond quickly to the legislative needs of Wales?

Mr. Murphy: Indeed it is. I obviously agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, when I was in the National Assembly yesterday delivering the legislative programme, all parties there recognised the importance of the appointment. That shows that the devolution settlement for Wales is working well and that we in the House will be able to give the Assembly the tools that it needs to do its job of improving public services in Wales. It also shows that there can be—indeed, there is—a strong working partnership between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly, which will improve the quality of life of people in Wales and especially, in this instance, that of all our children in Wales.

Mr. John Bercow: In recognising the appropriateness of the role of the Children's Commissioner in looking after minors in local authority homes and a number of other specified circumstances, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that it is vital that that role should not be extended in such a way as to supplant the natural and usually appropriate role of ordinary parents? What steps have been taken to ensure that we avoid that eventuality?

Mr. Murphy: Of course that role does not supplant the role of family life and of parents in any way, but enhances it. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the main reason for implementing the Bill so quickly, and the impetus behind that, is the Waterhouse report and the inquiry that led up to it. I am sorry to say that there were many examples of parents who did not exercise their responsibilities. It is obviously important to understand the role of parents, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that everyone welcomes the creation of the post, the person appointed to it and the work that he will do.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Bill covering the powers of the Children's Commissioner, which was published yesterday, contains a schedule dealing with those persons and arrangements that will be subject to review—13 of the 24 are all-Wales bodies, which can be subject to the commissioner's powers. However, the Wales Youth Agency is not mentioned in that list. Is it dealt with by another measure or has there been an oversight?

Mr. Murphy: As my hon. Friend is aware, the commissioner will have oversight of all public bodies in Wales, especially those that are dealt with by the National Assembly. Any functions that the Wales Youth Agency exercises on behalf of the Assembly or of its sponsored bodies will be a matter for the Children's Commissioner to deal with if necessary. However, I shall consider further the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Robert Walter: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Opposition have supported the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. My colleagues here and in the National Assembly for Wales have spoken in favour of the appointment and

we join the Secretary of State in wishing Mr. Peter Clarke well in his challenging job, although many have wondered why England will not benefit from a similar commissioner.
As the House has approached its consideration of the new legislation, my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and I have voiced our concerns about the rights of parents. Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear with hon. Members and tell us where he believes that the dividing line lies between the powers of the Children's Commissioner and the rights and responsibilities not of those parents who are responsible for child abuse, but of normal, caring parents?

Mr. Murphy: I do not believe that there is any dividing line as such, because normal, caring parents in Wales will welcome the appointment of the Children's Commissioner, who will have a general role as the children's champion in Wales. As I said to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I believe that the appointment does not supplant, but enhances the role of the family and of parents in Welsh society. I have not the slightest doubt that Peter Clarke's appointment will be welcomed by all parents in Wales. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) may be a member of the Committee that deals with the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, and I know that he will support its passage through the House.

Miners Compensation Scheme

Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on progress in respect of the miners compensation scheme. [142003]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): On 29 November, I was at a meeting of the monitoring group dealing with that issue. We agreed to set up a specific Welsh monitoring group, which will bring together all those involved in the process in Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree, as will all Members of the House, that it is vital that everyone involved in the process pulls together to speed up payments to our ex-miners.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend is only too well aware, ex-miners all over the country are still dying before receiving their full and final compensation—men such as a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), John Hopkins, who, sadly, died on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that nothing stands in the way of making a priority of getting sick and elderly ex-miners and ex-miners' widows to the top of the queue and that nothing blocks their way?

Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more with everything that my hon. Friend says. She and I, like a number of Members of the House, represent Welsh mining valleys. I also sympathise with the family of Mr. John Hopkins of Crumlin, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my father worked in the same pit. We can understand the feelings of former miners and the widows of former miners, and I entirely agree with her that we should give priority to older ex-miners, those who are gravely ill and


the elderly widows. I will certainly ensure that, when the Welsh monitoring group meets in the new year, we do all that we can to make certain that the process recognises the need to prioritise those people.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: A fortnight ago I addressed a public meeting in Ammanford on this subject. It was attended by many miners and miners' representatives. Once again, I made the case that the compensation recovery unit should not apply to compensation payments. I was quizzed by a new Labour councillor and another member of new Labour, who said that the miners should not be made a special case. Is that the right hon. Gentleman's view, or were those new Labour wretches just playing politics with the issue?

Mr. Murphy: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should talk about "playing politics with the issue". Many politicians of all persuasions in Wales are convinced that this is not a matter for party politics, but a matter that we should all take so seriously that there is no question of party politics. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, whose Department has been very sympathetic to the case of former miners. Obviously we must consider everyone who is in the same position in terms of compensation—those who have been injured at work, for instance—but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has paid particular attention to the issue. He, too, has been in contact with the Department of Social Security, and we are very conscious of the points that both he and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have made.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I warmly welcome the proposal for a central monitoring group in south Wales, which may speed up payments. The arrangements have been bedevilled by a complex handling agreement, which comes not from the Government or from Ministers, but from the court. According to that agreement, priority was supposed to be given to the oldest and sickest miners and to widows. A points system was agreed, but it does not seem to have worked. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the monitoring group sees that the arrangement under the handling agreement is implemented, so that the oldest and sickest miners can be given priority?

Mr. Murphy: As I said in answer to earlier questions, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is vital for all involved in the process—the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, the National Assembly where this applies to it, solicitors, the two companies working in the field and everyone else concerned—to ensure above all else that we give priority to the oldest miners, those who are gravely ill and widows.

Farming

Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the economic position of farmers in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [142004]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I discuss a range of economic issues relating to farmers with Assembly Secretaries and with representatives of both main Welsh farming unions. I am confident that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. The United Kingdom-wide action plan for farming, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, are the right tools to deliver an improved economic position for farmers.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that farmers' incomes have been hit particularly badly in Wales because of the unprecedented farming crisis, which especially affects livestock and hill farmers and which has been compounded by the recent floods? What hope can he give Welsh farmers that they will still be farming and earning a living in two or three years' time?

Mr. Hanson: I recognise that the income figures produced recently reflect severe difficulties in the farming industry. The Government and some Opposition Members realise that this is a long-term issue. The Government have given £600 million of additional support to Welsh farmers and are taking a number of steps to help them through, such as the rural development plan, the consultation document "Farming for the Future", the agri-food partnership and Agenda 2000.
This is a difficult issue, but the Government are trying to address the real needs of farmers. Many of the problems are long-standing, and relate to actions taken during 18 years of Conservative rule.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Farmers are indeed suffering great economic difficulties. One of the main problems is that, unlike their competitors who sell goods in euros, they sell their products in sterling. When does my hon. Friend expect those so-called advocates of farming on the Conservative Benches to realise that fact and plead the case that this country joins the euro to benefit their farming friends?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's position on the euro. Unlike the Conservative party, we do not rule it out for the whole of the next Parliament. That is what farmers need to consider. They should examine the Opposition's policy on the euro and compare it with the Government's sensible approach.

Mr. Richard Livsey: . My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) apologises for his absence, but he is meeting President Clinton.
Is the Minister aware of a survey at the Welsh dairy show that showed that a quarter of the hundreds of farmers who were questioned make no income at all from their dairy units and that most of them receive less than 15p a litre for their milk? Does he recognise that it is not possible to make a profit out of dairying if milk is sold for less than 20p a litre? Has he met the supermarkets,


the Dairy Trade Federation and the Department of Trade and Industry to do something about farmers getting a price that is at least above the cost of production?

Mr. Hanson: I certainly am aware of the difficulties in the dairy industry. Like the hon. Gentleman and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I represent a rural area with many dairy farmers. The Government have examined the difficult issue of supermarkets and their performance, and a report has been published. I certainly will reconsider the representations that have been made, but farming incomes are a difficult matter. The Government are providing resources and implementing measures to help promote farm produce in Wales. That is what will help farmers in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Nigel Evans: We hear what the Government say they are doing for farmers, but a liberty and livelihood march will take place on 18 March 2001, in which hundreds of thousands of farmers and those who support the countryside will make their views known. Many of them will come from all parts of Wales. Does the Minister begin to understand why they feel so angry and let down by his Government?

Mr. Hanson: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Hunting Bill. I am sure that he would not wish the Government to renege on their manifesto commitments. We have agreed to allow Members of Parliament a free vote on the Bill. I represent a rural area and there is a fox hunt in my constituency. I know what I am going to do on the day, and I trust that other hon. Members will do the same.

Mr. Evans: The Government have reneged on many other measures in their manifesto, particularly the pledge that there would be no new taxes. Does the Minister not realise that farming is facing the worst crisis in living memory? People who live in less-favoured areas are forecast next year to earn £2,700; petrol taxes have increased by 34 per cent.; the number of young entrants into farming has dropped; and meat inspection charges, veterinary charges, disposal charges and monitoring charges have all increased under his Government. Is it not time that they started to prioritise farmers in Wales instead of focusing on the Hunting Bill, which will cost jobs in the countryside in Wales? Farmers in Wales are not asking for a special deal; they just want an equal deal. If the hon. Gentleman's Government will not give it, the Conservative Government will.

Mr. Hanson: I said that £600 million of farming support in Wales this year was not an insignificant sum. We have abolished dairy hygiene charges and the Chancellor recently announced in the pre-Budget statement the abolition of the meat hygiene inspection charge. The Government are committed to giving Members of Parliament a free vote on hunting. The hon. Gentleman can live with his conscience; we will live with ours, and we will do what we want in our constituencies on that basis.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Graham Brady: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary

and the Welsh Health Secretary with regard to the number of people currently waiting more than 18 months for an operation at a hospital in Wales who live in England. [142007]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Secretary of State and I would not normally discuss with Assembly Health Secretaries the issue of patients living in England who are waiting for operations in hospitals in Wales, as they are not included in Welsh waiting list figures. These are the responsibility of health authorities in England. However, we are aware that some English residents are admitted to hospitals in Wales, and colleagues at the Department of Health have advised us that the most recent statistics show that the number currently waiting over 18 months is nil.

Mr. Brady: I am amazed by the Minister's answer. He clearly ducked the question. He must be aware, as I am, that in March 1997 1,400 people had waited more than 18 months for operations. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Members on the Government Benches must be quiet.

Mr. Brady: In March 1997, 1,400 patients had been waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment in Wales, but now there are more than 5,000. Under the Government, the waiting lists have increased by 257 per cent. What does he intend to do about that? Surely he must accept that he cannot continue to bat it away and try to avoid the issue.

Mr. Hanson: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read his own question, which asked how many people who live in England and are serviced by hospitals in Wales have waited more than 18 months. The answer to that question is nil. If he wants to talk about Welsh hospital waiting lists, I can tell him that a Conservative Government would, as a result of their proposed tax cuts, reduce the £1.35 billion extra that is being provided over the next three years. I noticed that he did not mention the 9 per cent. increase in his own health authority's funding for this year.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists in Wales are being addressed by the investment that the Government are putting into new hospital provision? In the past two years, I have attended the opening of a brand new community hospital in Chepstow and a new day surgery unit at Abergavenny, and I look forward to attending the opening of the new community hospital in Monmouth in the next couple of years.

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we deliver hospitals on the ground. Chepstow hospital and the potential new development in the Monmouth constituency are important investments in health care. The £1.35 billion extra that the Government have committed to health care in Wales is threatened by the policies of the Conservative party.

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to give notice that, in view of the Minister's unsatisfactory


response to my question and the fact that he did not even mention the 257 per cent. increase in waiting lists for in-patient operations in Wales, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Petrol Prices

Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received with regard to the cost of petrol in Wales. [142008]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have received representations on the cost of petrol in Wales from a range of organisations and individuals.

Mr. Gray: May I ask the Minister a simple, factual question, which I hope is incapable of producing spin or waffle? What was the average price of a gallon of petrol in rural Wales in 1997, and what is the price today?

Mr. Murphy: I am trying to work out the rate for a gallon of petrol from the price per litre, but it is about 82p to 90p depending on where in rural Wales one buys it.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Following the point made by the Secretary of State, may I ask him about the double tax that people in rural Wales are paying on petrol?

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State for the price of petrol in 1997. I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is using the wrong wording. Perhaps he should have a word with one of his hon. Friends who can give him the proper wording.

Mr. Thomas: Further to the point that the Secretary of State made about the price of petrol in rural areas, will he comment on the double tax that many people in those areas are paying? They are paying not only the tax that the Government impose, but the tax that the petrol companies impose for transporting petrol those distances. Rural garages buy their petrol wholesale at a more expensive price than urban garages sell it for. What can he do to address that problem, so that people in rural areas pay a similar price for their petrol to those in urban areas?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that in the last pre-Budget report my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a number of measures relating to the cost of petrol and diesel and vehicle excise duties. As a result of the combination of those two measures, there has been a cut of 8p a litre in diesel for hauliers and 4p a litre in petrol for car users. That applies in both urban and rural areas, so it is good news for the people of Wales.

National Health Service

Mr. Huw Edwards: When he intends to meet the First Secretary in the National Assembly to discuss the national health service in Wales. [142011]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with the National Assembly First Secretary to discuss health services in Wales.

Mr. Edwards: When my hon. Friend meets the Health Minister in Wales, will he discuss the modernisation of the NHS as it will apply to Wales, especially the role of the private practice undertaken by NHS consultants? Does he agree that NHS consultants should be rewarded for working exclusively for the NHS?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes valuable points and I am sure that he will welcome the health care and modernisation Bill, which will be published shortly. It will apply to England and Wales and fulfil the Government's duty to modernise the NHS.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ql. [141781] Mr. Damian Green: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 December.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is with President Clinton in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the House will join me in hoping that the visit is successful and in welcoming the President, once again, to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Green: The Deputy Prime Minister will be concerned about newspaper reports quoting nurses at the William Harvey hospital in my constituency who say that staff shortages are putting patients' lives at risk today. I would not expect the right hon. Gentleman to know about or to comment on local services, but nationally, can he tell the House what percentage of the new nurses recruited in the past 12 months are now working full time?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that we should take any lectures on this. We have set a target of 20,000 nurses, and 16,000 more nurses are now working in our health service. That is the answer for those who believe in the NHS. Our priority for the health service is 16,000 more nurses and 5,000 more doctors.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to the coalfield areas and ask him to turn his attention to the problems of the textile and clothing industry in those areas. In particular, will he look at the 2,500 job losses in the east midlands, including Amber Valley, which will result from the


sell-off of the clothing division of Coats Viyella and see what urgent action can be taken to find new jobs for those tragically facing redundancy just before Christmas?

The Deputy Prime Minister: This is a matter of considerable concern. As my hon. Friend knows, the taskforce is looking at the problem that she has mentioned. I should point out that the stability in our economy should be welcomed by the textile industry and any industries involved in investment. I hope that the taskforce will be able to offer some encouragement and help for that problem.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The Government have set five economic tests for joining the euro. What are they?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I did not hear exactly what the hon. Lady said—[Interruption.] She spoke quickly. If she asked about the tests for joining the euro, I can tell her that we have made that absolutely clear. There will be an economic test on the convertibility of European currencies and there will be a test on the effect the euro will have on our investment and our economy. Those are the conditions that we have laid down and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will address the matter soon after we win the next election.

Mrs. Browning: I will speak more slowly because we are looking for a substantive answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has a folder in his hand and, if he does not know the answer by heart, can he now answer questions that other Ministers have resisted? The Government say that the five economic tests are measurable and independent. Can he report progress on each of them to the House? Are we achieving convergence with the economies of the EU on each of the tests?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We have always made our view clear to the House—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear. When he made some assessments a few months ago, he did not feel that we could meet the conditions. He said that he would report to the House after the next election and give an assessment of the tests, which include financial services and employment.

Mrs. Browning: Is it not clear from the Deputy Prime Minister's answer that not only are the Government not monitoring the convergence criteria, five of which were set by the Chancellor, but they have failed to produce reports that put that information before the House? The Deputy Prime Minister has failed again today to answer that question. Is it not the reality that there are not five economic tests but one political test—whether the Government can get away with it? Will they not do anything to scrap the pound, whether it means setting meaningless tests, fiddling a referendum, or a conspiracy of silence at the next general election?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I remind the hon. Lady that those tests will again be measured and considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and will be brought

to the House. I am bound to say that her history on these European issues has not been helpful either to her own side or to the European argument.

Mr. Paul Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Shrewsbury yesterday to see for himself the severe flooding that has hit the town. In total this year, businesses and homes have been flooded out six times. I urge him to cut through the red tape and to help Shrewsbury to find the investment that is needed for a new flood defence scheme.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will identify with the concerns of people who have suffered bad experiences from floods during the past few months or so. I know that Members on both sides of the House have visited those areas and offered sympathy on behalf of all of us. In reality, what we have to do is much more about investment in flooding. There has been increased investment in flooding both by the previous Administration and by this Government. Indeed, the £51 million that I announced is designed to bring forward some of those flood schemes.
With regard to people who are suffering at present from the floods, we have set up bodies in those areas to see how we can further help them. There will be a statement by the Environment Agency on the consequences of the floods. The House will then be able to debate the lessons and to see exactly what we can do about them.

Mr. A. J. Beith: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not a test question, but a question to which millions of travellers would like the answer? By what date does he expect the frequency, punctuality and timetable that existed before the Hatfield crash to be in operation again on our rail system?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Everyone is concerned about that matter. Indeed, in my discussions with Railtrack I have made it clear that we want the timetable to be back as quickly as possible, but I recognise the massive amount of work involved in checking all the lines; it is a considerable job. A tremendous amount of re-railing is needed—300-odd miles, with about 600 cross-over points—which creates real problems.
Our concern was to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority and all those who are involved—the train companies and Railtrack—got a common programme. I asked for a national recovery programme some weeks ago. Railtrack did not meet the timetable the first time. The new management has now produced the rail recovery programme.
I have made it clear to those in management that I expect the rail recovery programme to set dates, times and sustainable timetables. Under those circumstances, I give them until January, as does the Prime Minister, to see how far they go in delivering—but let me be clear. The problem is so great—there has been massive disinvestment over decades—that they have said in their recovery programme it will possibly be Easter time before they complete the programme and are back to normal service.

Mr. Beith: Although much of the chaos results from the fragmentation and mess of the Tory privatisation,


since we cannot have a date, can we know who is in charge, given that there are almost daily ministerial meetings and summits through which the Government acknowledge that they must take on some responsibility? What is the role of the Strategic Rail Authority in sorting all this out? Is it a responsibility that will stay with the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, or is a consequence of all this that the Department of Transport will be floated off again, and these responsibilities with it? Many people are suffering rail journeys twice as long as they used to experience; the service is extremely unpredictable. What will be done?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening to my reply. I gave a date. I said that the recovery programme expected that we would be back to normal service by the Easter period—and the timetables; it is all identified in the recovery programme. It will be impossible to get a sustainable timetable if we do not have a recovery period for all the work that has to be done on the track, and it is considerable.
We have asked the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in being after the House passed the legislation—no thanks to the opposition either of the Liberals or—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] For whatever reason, they delayed the legislation dealing with the railways. The Strategic Rail Authority will produce a strategic plan at the end of January, setting out dates and times. It will make for a more modern railway, but it should be recognised that privatisation was a botched job, to say the least, and we are trying to clear up the mess.

Ms Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive investment and effort that has been put in over the past two years by central and local government and the work force at Vauxhall, Luton to secure the future of that plant? Does he understand the anger of the work force and the local community at the slap in the face, just before the festive season, of the announcement by General Motors of the closure of that car plant? Will he join me in making representations to General Motors at the highest level to ensure that the company takes full responsibility for ensuring the financial future of the families affected, the work force and the local community?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragic day for the workers who received that information during the past 24 hours. The House will also agree that it is a great pity that they were not informed earlier. Later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on the matter and hon. Members will be able to question him about the details. As we showed at Longbridge, the Government are prepared to intervene where they can to help in these matters. In response to the situation at Rover, we established a taskforce and a regional development agency, which, I might add, the Opposition would abolish if they were ever elected. Those bodies played a major part in addressing the problems in the midlands. I am sure that, once again, they will have a role to play in my hon. Friend's constituency, but we shall have to wait for the statement from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. James Gray: The nation greatly enjoyed the Prime Minister on television last night. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his right hon. Friend, as was widely reported this morning, that life on the railways now is hell, or does he agree with his noble Friend Lord Macdonald who, echoing Lord Callaghan's famous remarks, said that there is no crisis on the railways? Which of them is right?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know from his membership of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs more than most hon. Members do about the incompetence in the industry. My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald made it clear that there was a crisis in investment and a crisis in management. Anyone who looks at the tape of that interview will find that it is not a proper representation—[Interruption.] The New Statesman is quite famous for changing the character of what was intended or meant in order to make a headline. One can check that, but at the end of the day it is a bit much coming from a member of the party that was in government, established Railtrack and caused the ruddy mess. The crisis in our rail industry came from the privatisation of Railtrack and the rail industry by the previous Administration.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the weapon of terror is used not exclusively against sovereign states but sometimes by them. I know that he will be aware of the massacre of 29 Tamils at the Bindunuwewa detention camp in Sri Lanka. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the centre for human rights and development that the massacre was co-ordinated and carried out with the complicity of the local Sri Lankan police? Will he assure my Tamil constituent whose family suffered in this dreadful action that Britain will give no support to terrorism, from whatever source?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Everyone in the House will be concerned at the acts of terrorism carried out by the Tamil groups, and we offer our sympathy to all who have suffered the consequences. I can say on behalf of the Government and the whole House that we condemn any such terrorism.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that only five of the 16 Bills in the Queen's Speech apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, what does the Deputy Prime Minister think that voters of England and Wales will feel when they see Scottish Members trooping through the Lobby to vote on matters that relate exclusively to England and Wales and over which he and I have no reciprocal rights in Scotland? Does he agree that, pending a proper constitutional resolution to the problem, all Scottish Members should follow the honourable example of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and take a vow of abstinence, starting with the Hunting Bill on Monday?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The issues surrounding two-tier government concern everyone in the House. They did not seem to concern the previous Administration when it came to Northern Ireland, and in opposition we supported


their initiative in that respect. The hon. Gentleman's views are well known, and these controversial matters will continue to be debated in the House.
The view that I have always held is that devolution for Scotland and Wales will lead the way to further decentralisation in the United Kingdom, in the form of regional government. Others no doubt have different views, but we are consulting on the matter. The point is that we believe in decentralisation because we saw the damage brought about by a highly centralised Thatcher Government. A decentralised form of government will bring decisions nearer to the people of this country.

Mr. Bill Michie: Ever since the time of Adam, local government has complained about the amount of central Government funding for local services. Will my right hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and representatives of local government sit around a table in the near future and thrash out a system that is understandable and which targets money so that it goes where it is needed?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Matters of local finance have always caused considerable controversy, as the poll tax and other matters have shown. It is a matter of record that the amount given in grant by this Government has risen this year by 6.7 per cent., or £2.8 billion. In the four years since 1997–98, central Government grant to local government has gone up by 13.6 per cent. in real terms. That compares with a cut of 6.9 per cent. in the previous four years. However it is measured, the Government have a very good record when it comes to the resources and priority given to local government. We have secured real-terms increases, not the real-terms reduction that was the record of the previous Administration.
I share my hon. Friend's concern about local government finance, and that is why we have published a Green Paper on the subject. We are now consulting on it, and will return to the House with our conclusions.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Perhaps I can ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question that he might be able to answer. He has agreed with Lord Macdonald and admitted that there is crisis in the railway industry. He protests that he is merely clearing up the mess, but is not it the case, after four years of this Government, that we have a rail system in which 10,000 trains run late, the bill to industry in the past two years has amounted to billions of pounds, this year's Christmas post is in turmoil, and it takes passengers nine hours to get from Nottingham to London?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Lady to come here and talk about the railway industry in that way, given that Conservative Front Benchers have disowned the way in which it was privatised. The industry's organisation is wrong—the chief executive of Railtrack has said that it has the worst kind of organisation. The right hon. Lady therefore has a bit of cheek to stand up and criticise what is going on.
The record shows that the Government are trying to get the rail service back on line: 93 per cent. of London commuter services are running, and 78 per cent. of inter-city services and 96 per cent. of other services are running. Punctuality has increased and, although it is not

as good as it should be, the improvement must be seen against the background of the problems faced by Railtrack. It is not enough, however, and I have to make sure that the improvements and changes advocated by the Strategic Rail Authority, and implemented and discussed by the rest of the industry, will be sufficient to bring back normal service to Britain's railways.

Mrs. Browning: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could move on to another crisis. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there will be a crisis in the national health service this winter?

The Deputy Prime Minister: He did not say that, just as Lord Macdonald did not say that there was no crisis in the rail industry. My right hon. Friend said that there are difficulties and that the Government are putting extra resources into the NHS to resolve them. As I understand it, more than 90 per cent. of health trusts have already stated that, because of those extra resources, they are better fitted to deal with problems this winter.
The Opposition are attempting to make the problem sound worse than it is. We have provided more nurses, more doctors, and more resources. We are beginning to turn round a health service that was our creation, but which the Opposition have, in the past, opposed.

Mrs. Browning: If the Deputy Prime Minister will not accept that there is a crisis, will he listen to the words of a doctor? Dr. Stuart Withington, the director of intensive care at the Royal London hospital has said:
We are seeing crisis every day in intensive care, cancelled operations, refused emergency admissions, non-clinical transfers to other units. It is just a battle zone every day.
The Government have been in power for four years, and there is a crisis in transport, a crisis in health and a crisis in the police; and the Department for Education and Employment is realising that there will be a crisis in teacher recruitment very shortly.
The Government were elected saying that things could only get better, yet they have plunged our public services into crisis. Has not this just been a long, sorry story of all spin and no delivery?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Either the hon. Lady is ignorant of the facts, which clearly shows from her question, or perhaps this is a case of bad judgment on her part. When one looks at her history and past statements, one sees that she worked as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Government during the BSE crisis, and was named in the Phillips report and got the judgment wrong. She said that the minimum wage was the kiss of death to employment, but the number of jobs has gone up in her constituency and 1 million more people are back in work. The hon. Lady was also the campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Her judgment is wrong, not the facts.

Mr. Andy King: In the spirit of Christmas, will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister make my constituents in Rugby even happier by


announcing that he will provide the extra money for the western relief road that the Tories failed to deliver in 18 years?

The Deputy Prime Minister: In the spirit of Christmas, I can announce that tomorrow £8.8 billion will be made available for local transport plans, out of the £180 billion investment planned for the next 10 years—far beyond any amount given by the previous Government. The local transport plans will cover light rail systems, road systems and the bus and rail industries. My hon. Friend must wait until tomorrow for the spirit of Christmas, but I do not think that he will be disappointed.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the National Rail Enquiry Bureau has been giving false information about the running of trains on the west coast main line between Stockport and London for the past two weeks? Is he aware that the bureau refused to put that information right until it had been notified by the Association of Train Operating Companies, even though it knew that the information was wrong? Does he share the anger of my constituents not only that it takes four hours to get to London, but that it takes two weeks to get information to the National Rail Enquiry Bureau?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Since the whole terrible business started after the Hatfield tragedy, we have constantly sought information from Railtrack on these matters. Looking carefully at the problems, one realises that, if one wants a reliable timetable, it is crucial to have a national recovery programme. The difficulty facing some of the train companies was that, when they set their timetables, they found that further examination of the track brought more train restrictions. It is impossible to maintain a sustainable timetable on those grounds.
Last week, we were given the national recovery programme. A sustainable programme is now planned: one from before Christmas up to the new year, and then, it is hoped, from the new year to the spring period, when the national recovery work will be completed and there will be a proper timetable. I am pushing very hard, as is Lord Macdonald, to make sure that a better timetable with better information is produced. But we must keep our eye on the ball and make sure that the recovery programme is completed.
As I have said before, if Railtrack is unable to deliver its national recovery programme, that will be a comment on the abilities of the new management. I support them; I want recovery—it is their promise and it is for them to deliver.

Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of the Allerton bus and rail interchange in my south Liverpool constituency will be an important part of the on-going regeneration of the area? Tomorrow morning, when he hands out his Christmas presents as he makes his announcement about transport investment, will he consider the claims of my south Liverpool constituency and the redevelopment of the Allerton bus and rail interchange?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not want to appear to be too much like Santa Claus—or I should be inviting

everyone to ask what will be in tomorrow's statement. However, the statement is a good one; it is about improving transport. It does of course consider Merseyside—as it does every region in the country; hon. Members can wait for that until tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Butterfill—not here.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise that the main line to the south-west is completely out of action yet again? London is in effect cut off from the south-west. Does he accept that his comments about the lack of investment in the rail infrastructure over many years and the failure to keep the Victorian engineering works throughout the country up to date—especially in the south-west—show that there has been a complete failure under successive Governments? Does he regret the fact that his party, in opposition, failed to stop the sell-off of Railtrack and failed to make sure that we could keep Railtrack under public control by simply ensuring that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would bring the company back into public control with a bond system?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The reality was that public sector industry—especially British Rail—had been denied resources for a number of decades. I made that point as constantly when I was in opposition as I do in government. Let me be clear that considerable changes were required in the long-term financing of rail. At least I was able to make a happy agreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to raise that £180 billion; what that has to do is guarantee long-term investment. The two or three-year Treasury rule was no good for our public sector capital investment.
Some parts of the main line to the south-west are still single line running; that is wholly unacceptable for a main line system. That is a reflection of the inadequate money—inadequate capital. I have come up with a formula based on the business that I inherited—Railtrack, a privatised railway concern. That will mean that long-term investment is found and will improve the quality of our railway.
I realise that the Transport Sub-Committee has made some comments about Railtrack today. We shall take them into account. However, we have to get on with the job; one part of that is ensuring that we get the resources—we have done that.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Did my right hon. Friend watch the BBC "Sports Review of the Year" on Sunday, which featured my constituents Jason Queally and Jeanette Brakewell—both of whom were Olympic medallists? Was my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that Tanni Grey-Thompson, also an Olympic medallist, was unable to collect her award with the other winners because nobody had thought to provide a ramp for her wheelchair? Is that not a lesson to us all that we must press ahead at full speed with the


implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to put a stop to such insulting treatment of one section of society?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will be concerned that people were unable to receive their awards for that reason. Our Disability Rights Commission exists to correct it. In several policy matters—I know about those in transport—we are meeting requirements under the legislation to ensure that access is a right and is available to everyone. The House will want to express its sorrow that those people could not accept their awards and I hope that, at some point in the future, arrangements will be made so that they can enjoy them.

Mr. John Burnett: Many of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon, like many people in the country, are having their lives devastated by repeated flooding of their homes and businesses. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the

formula for apportioning the flood defence budget seriously disadvantages rural areas? Weight is given to housing density twice over; once is fair but twice is unfair. Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to review the formula immediately to ensure that a fair proportion of the flood defence funding goes to our rural towns and villages?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, which was also made in our discussions about what we could do about the floods a few weeks ago. It is connected with the arguments and judgments made by the Treasury and others about cost benefit, which I felt was inadequate because it did not take into account how often certain people are affected by flooding. This is not just about how many houses are involved but about how frequent flooding is, and I do not think that the present cost benefit analysis allows for that. I have ordered an inquiry, and the Environment Agency and others will make a report, so I hope that we will be able to deal with the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vauxhall (Luton)

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement concerning yesterday's announcement by General Motors to end car production at its Vauxhall plant in Luton.
As hon. Members will know, over recent months, General Motors has been conducting a worldwide review of its operations. The results of that review were announced yesterday. The decision in relation to Luton is a bitter blow, with the prospect of 2,000 jobs being lost by this time next year. Our efforts must be directed towards assisting the individuals affected, and the local community, through what will clearly be a difficult period.
In this statement I shall outline the steps that the Government will take. But it is important that, before I do that, the House considers the reasons given by General Motors for its decision. The company has made it clear that this is part of a Europe-wide restructuring procedure, which will result in more than 5,000 job losses across Europe. General Motors has stated that the restructuring is a response to overcapacity in the car market and rapidly changing European market conditions, with lower sales than expected and a shift in customer preferences towards smaller vehicles.
The announcement is part of an overall restructuring by General Motors, designed to reduce salaried employment levels by 10 per cent. in north America and Europe over the next 12 months—cutting 10,000 jobs worldwide. Despite yesterday's announcement, Vauxhall will remain an important manufacturer in the United Kingdom. It has confirmed that it will continue with its investment plans for a new van to be manufactured at Luton, and that planned production volumes for the project will he increased. That will secure more than 2,000 jobs.
Ellesmere Port will continue to produce Astra cars and V6 engines, employing more than 4,000 people. Vauxhall also announced yesterday that a study is being made of the possibility of incorporating the next generation Vectra and turning the Ellesmere Port plant into a two-model "flex" plant. It is therefore clear that this is part of a worldwide restructuring by General Motors, resulting in job losses in north America and mainland Europe as well as in Luton.
The challenge is to provide new job opportunities for the future to replace the jobs lost as a result of yesterday's decision. That is why yesterday I, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, announced that the Government would take steps to help those affected and to strengthen the local economy.
The Employment Service, working closely with Vauxhall, local authorities and other relevant bodies, will provide a package of advice and assistance to individual employees. The package will include rapid response units providing a personal service to help people find new jobs, an on-site job shop to offer vacancies, help with job applications and offer a fast-track benefits service, and retraining programmes that will offer guidance on further education and training opportunities.
The rapid response units have a good record in finding new employment for people affected by major job losses. At Fujitsu, in County Durham, a rapid response unit

helped to ensure that about 94 per cent. of the work force found new jobs within 12 months. At Siemens, in north Tyneside, the Employment Service played a major role in helping about 90 per cent. of the work force find new employment.
Taken together, the measures will ensure that Vauxhall employees are given the best opportunity for a secure future and that the effects on the local economy are reduced. Additionally, we have asked the regional development agency to take the lead in identifying the action necessary to support the local economy and the employment base. The RDA has already begun that task and, this afternoon, is meeting the local authority and other relevant organisations. It will also establish a planning partnership to identify the practical measures necessary to assist in economic regeneration and job creation.
As a result of decisions taken by the Government, Luton is now part of our assisted areas map and, as such, qualifies for regional selective assistance. That will clearly be an enormous advantage in securing jobs in the future.
Of particular concern must be the position of businesses that supply Vauxhall, for which special support will be necessary. The RDA will therefore help companies in the supply chain to diversify, to find new business and to minimise the impact on the wider local economy.
It is clear that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of our industry are going through major restructuring. In such circumstances, the Government's role has to be to provide economic stability, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. The underlying strengths of our economy are clear, as two sets of figures published today demonstrate. Today's labour market figures show that the employment level is 300,000 higher than at this time last year, and official figures published this morning show that the stock of foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom has increased by 21 per cent. in the past year, from £188 billion to £227 billion.
I am, however, the first to acknowledge that the figures will be of little comfort for the thousands of workers in Luton. Many hon. Members will understand the sense of anger that they feel, particularly about the manner in which they learned of their fate. This will be a bleak Christmas for those affected by Vauxhall's decision, and we must do all that we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges of the next 12 months.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding to our request for a statement on this matter and for giving me an advance sight of his proposals.
The ending of car production by Vauxhall at Luton is indeed a terrible blow to the work force there, to supplying companies and to many of the other companies in Luton that depend on the buoyancy of the local economy. It is a particular blow that the massive redundancies were announced without warning just before Christmas. I agree with the Secretary of State that everything must be done to help those who are affected by the redundancies, including help to find jobs and, when necessary, to obtain retraining.
It is not, however, an isolated closure: it is part of a very damaging pattern of closures that has been accelerating in recent months. Ford has announced that it is ending car production at Dagenham, with the loss of thousands of jobs there. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is also threatened. During the Rover fiasco earlier this year, we saw how out of touch the Government had become with the motor industry and its problems.
Of course there is an overcapacity problem in the motor industry. We all know about that, and the Government cannot cure that problem. However, the Government can cure their own tax and regulation policies. Since the general election, they have piled on layer upon layer of extra business taxes and regulations, which have particularly damaged manufacturing industry and undermined its success in difficult world markets. We warned the Secretary of State about that; we have been telling him about it for months, but he has done nothing about it and we are beginning to see the results of that complacency.
The Secretary of State gave an employment figure for the economy as a whole. What he did not tell us is what is happening to manufacturing employment. Can he confirm that, since May 1997, manufacturing employment has fallen by 206,000, having risen under the previous Government? I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why motor manufacturers such as Nissan, Toyota and BMW came to this country? They were attracted to Britain under the previous Government, but under the present Government, they have left or they are engaged in massive and damaging cost and employment reductions.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House what he is doing, not to cure a problem after it has occurred, but to help the industry and prevent more closures in future? Specifically, where is the aid for Nissan in Sunderland that he promised months ago? The application is sitting on some desk in the European Commission. When is that aid to be paid to Nissan? Will we be faced with another catastrophe if that plant moves to France?
Lastly, when will the Secretary of State start to roll back the tide of escalating taxation and regulations, which the CBI estimated will cost British industry an extra £32 billion over the life of this Parliament? Specifically, what will the Secretary of State tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do about the new energy tax that is to be paid by all businesses in the United Kingdom from 1 April—the so-called climate change levy? That will be particularly damaging to the motor industry, unless the industry relocates to another country that does not have the tax.
Can the Secretary of State tell us at last what he will do, not to go on taxing and regulating British businesses and the motor industry, but to start to help those industries and all who work in them, to stop such catastrophes happening in the future?

Mr. Byers: 1 regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not address the present difficulties being faced by workers at Luton. He paid lip service to that and spent much of his contribution speaking about issues that were not related to the announcement that General Motors made yesterday with regard to Luton.
General Motors made it clear yesterday why it was taking action in relation to Europe. It was because of overcapacity in the car market and, as the General Motors press notice stated,
rapidly changing European market conditions
with lower sales than expected. Those were the reasons given for the decision, which related to Europe. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to read the statement made by General Motors, he will see that it reflects exactly those points. It was a worldwide issue and it was being addressed by the worldwide review. It would have been interesting had the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the real history behind the decisions being taken by General Motors, because it is far more complicated than he would lead the House to believe.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about more than £10 billion of burdens being imposed on business. What he does not tell the House is that that includes the right for people to have four weeks paid holiday a year as well as the national minimum wage. For most people, those are not red tape or administrative burdens but decent minimum standards for people in the workplace. The shadow Chancellor endorsed the national minimum wage without consulting his shadow Cabinet colleagues—many who sit on the Opposition Front Bench still disagree with the principle of a national minimum wage.
The reality is that the tax burden—corporation tax—has been reduced for companies in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman talked about employment levels in manufacturing. He is right to point out that, to be precise, 206,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since May 1997. He did not tell the House about the record under the Conservative Government when, on average, 150,000 manufacturing jobs were lost for each of the 19 years of Conservative rule.
Economic stability will be the way in which we shall create the framework within which manufacturing can prosper—not turning the clock back 10 years to inflation at 10 per cent., interest rates at 15 per cent. and more than 1 million manufacturing jobs lost in one year as a result of the policies that the Conservative party pursued. We shall remain firm to our economic commitment of stability. In the medium and long terms, that is the only way to create the climate in Britain for more employment growth and prosperity in manufacturing.

Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that now is not the time for political posturing, for tearing up workers' rights, as those on the Opposition Benches seem to advocate, or for returning to the economic and employment policies that caused such devastation to businesses and the economy in Luton during their term of office? Does he understand the anger felt by the work force and the community in Luton, and the need for an urgent response from the Government?
I thank him for the package that he outlined and put in place so swiftly, and also for the responsiveness of this Government to our call for objective 2 and assisted area status funding, which will help those people who may be facing unemployment in Luton. Does he agree that, if General Motors feels that it has a right to close car plants,


it also has a responsibility to consult workers and to ensure that it takes full responsibility for their future livelihoods and for the regeneration of the local economy?

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I am sure that the House has great respect for the way in which she and hon. Members with neighbouring constituencies are dealing with a difficult set of circumstances. She is right to point out that we have put in place measures to give Luton objective 2 status and ensured that our assisted area map applies to Luton, which was not the case, so that there are greater opportunities to lever new investment into the town and the surrounding area. I also understand—I referred to this in my statement—the anger that the workers must have felt about hearing their fate on a local radio news station. That is no way, at the beginning of the 21st century and in a spirit of partnership in the workplace, to treat dedicated and hard-working employees.
What we need to do is look carefully at how the European works councils and the collective redundancies directives are operating to see whether they can be improved to ensure that we do not see a repeat of yesterday's events.

Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add to the sympathy for the workers who have lost their jobs in these sad circumstances? There seems to be common ground between all participants in the debate about the peremptory and insensitive way in which the management have handled the matter. Has the episode in any way changed the Government's attitude towards the European directive on worker consultation, which they have hitherto resisted but which might have mitigated some of those effects?
Does the Secretary of State see a common thread in the decision of four car companies to relocate production to the core euroland economies? Does he share the judgment of Nick Reilly at Vauxhall that the persistent and substantial overvaluation of the pound against the euro, although not decisive, was certainly a factor? Does he share the view that John Monks expressed yesterday at the Trades Union Congress that continued uncertainty over British participation in the euro is influencing long-term investment decisions? As there is continued uncertainty about Rover, will the Secretary of State give a progress report—if he has one—on the company's effort to secure a long-term global strategic partner for its operations?

Mr. Byers: The information and consultation directive that is being discussed in Europe at present is flawed in a number of ways. As the House knows, the Government have concerns about the principle of subsidiarity and the fact that it is not respected in the directive in its current form. We are not convinced that the directive will work effectively in the United Kingdom. However, especially in the light of yesterday's announcement and the manner in which it was made, we accept that there is a need to look carefully at provisions that currently apply within the UK. That is why I mentioned the directives on collective redundancies and European works councils, which apply within the UK. We need to reflect on how they can be improved or, perhaps, on the need for us to come up with our own domestic arrangements. That will ensure that, in the spirit of partnership in the workplace—which, we believe, assists productivity—there is a better way of doing things.
On the single European currency, all that I can say is that yesterday's announcement by General Motors and Vauxhall made it clear that that was not a significant factor in their decision. When an announcement is made that affects 2,000 jobs in Luton, 3,000 jobs in mainland Europe and, I understand, 5,000 jobs in north America, it is clearly not a matter that relates to the single European currency. On the situation at MG Rover, I understand that it is still on course to meet the targets that it set when it took over from BMW.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and especially his assurances about measures to help workers who have lost their jobs to get new employment in the future? Hundreds of my constituents have been affected and are unemployed. This morning, I was outside the plant, where there were a lot of extremely angry people. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the company for the way in which the announcement was made, as it was leaked to the press before the workers and trade unions were told? Will he also condemn the decision itself, which is not justified? Two years ago, with the assistance of the Government, the trade unions, local Members of Parliament and the council, we got an agreement to keep production at Luton to bring the new car in. Only three months ago, an agreement with the trade unions was reached that was predicated on the new car. That is not going to happen now.
I have two specific questions. The first is about the strength of the pound. The company studiously avoided reference to that in its statements. That is understandable, as it negotiated a deal with the trade unions that specifically mentioned the strength of the pound. The workers accepted a lower pay rise, predicated on the possibility of the pound depreciating. When that happened, they would have a higher pay rise. Although the company did not mention the strength of the pound, Nick Reilly, the chairman of the company, mentioned it on television last night. That may be factor, and we want to know which of those voices is the correct one.
Secondly, there may be overcapacity in the car industry in the world, and even in Europe, but there is not overcapacity in Britain, because we are still net importers of car products. It is about time that we defended what remains of our car industry in Britain, because if we do not, it will all disappear, with terrible damage not just to employment and the balance of trade, but to Britain's economic future. Manufacturing matters and we should defend it.

Mr. Byers: I understand the anger felt by the work force and by those Members of Parliament who were closely involved in securing the deal two years ago, which all felt would give the Luton plant a long-term future. That was the intention of the deal and, just six months ago, Vauxhall committed itself to a significant investment in Luton, which, once again, most people thought would secure the plant's future.
Yesterday, Vauxhall said that the losses incurred in Europe in the third quarter of this year, running to $181 million, with even further losses projected in the final quarter of this year, were such that immediate steps had to be taken. As a result, it made yesterday's announcement affecting 5,000 jobs throughout Europe. It did not pray in aid the strength of the pound as a reason


for its decision on Luton. We will have a debate on the effect on manufacturing of not being within the eurozone and of the strength of the pound in relation to the single European currency, but today's statement on Vauxhall at Luton is not the time for that debate. When it is announced that jobs are to be lost in Belgium, Germany and north America, the pound and the single European currency are clearly not factors on this occasion.
Car plants in the United Kingdom trade in Europe and, increasingly, globally. For example, Toyota in Swindon is looking to export an increasing number of its cars to north America. Therefore, the issue is not one of overcapacity in the United Kingdom. Those companies deal at a European level and are often organised at a European level, and they will look at the market in European terms and make a decision based on overcapacity in that market. That is the decision that has been taken by GM in relation to Vauxhall at Luton.

Sir David Madel: This is terrible news for Luton, but equally terrible news for the adjacent towns of Houghton Regis and Dunstable. May I take it that the help that Luton will get will be applied to Houghton Regis and Dunstable as well?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, first and foremost, the news should have been given to the work force by the president of General Motors Europe, not by whoever it was who leaked it to the BBC?
The Secretary of State is aware of job losses and possible job losses in Dunstable and Houghton Regis at TRW Steering, BTR and Trico Products. We need to modernise our automotive base in south Bedfordshire. We need drastically to improve the infrastructure to make the area more attractive to new employers so that they will come and help us.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand if I say, after battling for 30 years in the House to help Vauxhall, that this is a terribly sad day. If only the Luton plant could have had the new Corsa, it could have been a flexi-plant, which I sincerely hope Ellesmere Port will be and so be able to help in the employment of some of those who will lose their jobs.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and strong point about the wider implications of the announcement, not just for Luton, but for the surrounding towns and other areas throughout the United Kingdom. There are two ways in which we can address that. First, we need to ensure that individual employees who may be located outside Luton, in Dunstable or elsewhere in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have the tailored advice and support that I mentioned in the statement.
Secondly, we need to give clear help to the supply chain. Many companies and businesses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will have been major suppliers to Vauxhall at Luton. We know the first tier suppliers and, with the agreement of Vauxhall, we shall contact them to ensure that they are given short-term help to diversify and help with retooling and reskilling, if that is appropriate. We have very much in mind the needs of the businesses in the supply chain and we shall do all that we can to assist them.
There may well be a wider issue about how we can modernise the auto industry in south Bedfordshire, and I shall draw that aspect to the attention of the regional

development agency and the other partners who are drawing together the practical proposals on how we can move forward.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the feeling of shock and uncertainty is being experienced in Bedford and Kempston, as well as in Luton, Dunstable and other neighbouring areas? People are asking where the problem will lead and where it will end. Despite the welcome announcement, as I understand it, of an extra 1,000 jobs for the Vauxhall-IBC Vehicles plant in Luton, will my right hon. Friend do his best to address that feeling of uncertainty? In particular, when will a programme of effective action be prepared, published and implemented to support companies in the supply chain and underpin the local economy?

Mr. Byers: That was one of the specific points made in the package of measures announced jointly yesterday by me and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. We are conscious of the vulnerable position into which many supply chain businesses will be put, often by cash-flow problems, which might hit them very quickly. The present situation involves a relatively slow run-down of production at Luton. The bulk of the jobs will be lost at about this time next year, so we have an opportunity to put in place some robust measures. I hope that those measures will overcome many of the difficulties and lift the uncertainty that must be felt by many people and businesses.
I am conscious of the wider implications, which extend to areas such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). The brief that we have given to the regional development agency states that although concentrated issues may need to be dealt with in Luton, the wider implications will also need to be addressed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: In seeking to alleviate the unhappy position of people whose jobs and businesses will be affected by the problems in Luton and in Bedfordshire more widely, will the right hon. Gentleman consult carefully with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Will he also take note that infrastructure between the M1 and A1 in Bedfordshire is poor and ask for higher priority to be given to the roads programme to improve that infrastructure, so that businesses can build and develop?

Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that infrastructure must be one of the key issues when the groups that we have established consider the measures necessary for the economic regeneration of the area. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned difficulties in relation to the M1 and A1. I shall draw that point specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. As we consider the steps that are necessary to create further jobs and employment opportunities in the United Kingdom, the need for an infrastructure that can be responsive and meet the demands of business is becoming increasingly clear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement


tomorrow about the roads programme. I believe that economic growth and stability will be a key theme in that announcement.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's action in rapidly establishing practical steps to at least ameliorate the problem is welcome and is in sharp contrast with the outrageous behaviour of General Motors. Will that company now pick up any responsibility for the rescue package? It has an obligation to the work force. Also, my right hon. Friend mentioned information and consultation. It is obvious that General Motors has ridden roughshod over the natural rights that the Vauxhall work force should have had. He commented on the draft European Union directive, but will he reconsider the issue? It is clear, especially in comparison with other parts of Europe, that there is a huge lack in our law, which fails to protect British workers.

Mr. Byers: Clearly, there will be discussions with General Motors about what contribution it can make to help with the regeneration of Luton and with the consequences of its decision.
On the information and consultation directive, the Government's position is very clear. We believe that the directive is flawed and that it will not be applied in the United Kingdom in a way that will bring the benefits that some people have suggested. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point, which we need to consider, namely, how to improve our procedures in such a situation. The Government believe that, rather than looking at what may come out of Europe, it would be far better to examine what we can do in our domestic arrangements. That means looking closely at the collective redundancy situation and the European works council provisions. By doing so, and perhaps altering them to reflect the United Kingdom's national position, we will be in a far stronger position to deal with the concerns that were raised by my hon. Friend—but address them we will. That is why we intend to review those two areas.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In Europe during the last quarter, GM lost $181 million. Such losses are not sustainable in the long term. A good part of those losses were incurred outside the United Kingdom, which demonstrates that the decision has little or nothing to with the weakness of the euro, and is not the fault of the work force, who have become increasingly productive—they produce good quality goods and have been extraordinarily flexible in their work practices. I trust that the Secretary of State will endorse those points.
During the past year and a half, I have talked to representatives of the manufacturing industry with greater frequency. It has become clear that they find that their costs are increasing dramatically. That is why inward investment in manufacturing is going down and national investment in manufacturing is going down—or, at least, it is not increasing at the rate that it has maintained in the past. The so-called environmental taxes, which are being imposed by the Government, are one reason for that. I say "so-called" because they have little to do with the environment and a lot to do with taxation. The non-wage costs of employing people is another factor. I ask the Secretary of State, in a non-party political way, to examine the costs of manufacturing and the costs of

employing people. If we could reduce them, we could reverse the trends in this country involving a decline in inward investment and a decline in investment in manufacturing.

Mr. Byers: I agreed with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about the work force at Luton. There is no doubt that they have been flexible and hard working and that productivity has improved as a result. Yesterday's announcement is no reflection on the commitment and motivation of the work force at Luton. Other factors came into play. As I said, General Motors conducted a worldwide review.
I regret, however, that the hon. Gentleman had to move into party-political mode in relation to costs. Examining yesterday's announcement makes it clear why General Motors moved to close car production at Luton—its decision was based on overcapacity and on models not selling as well as it expected them to do.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that if the situation in the United Kingdom was as bleak as the hon. Gentleman portrayed, why are record levels of investment coming into the United Kingdom—this morning's figures show that in terms of direct foreign investment—and why have we got a million more people in work now than there were when we took office in May 1997?

Mr. Andrew Miller: I informed my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) and those Opposition Members who represent seats in that area of the calls that I have received this morning from my constituents, who send their heart-felt sympathy to people in the Luton area. My constituents have known mass unemployment.
What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with his opposite numbers in other European countries to address the serious problem of overcapacity in Europe and elsewhere? On a more local level, is he aware that, unlike the rest of mainland Europe, all interplant transfers by GM in the UK go by road, not rail. Will he urge the Deputy Prime Minister to lean on rail companies to encourage them to put a decent deal together so that we can lower the cost of interplant transfers?

Mr. Byers: Those issues are discussed at the Industry Council of the European Commission, and no doubt they will be discussed when it next meets.
I am interested by what my hon. Friend said about ways of reducing costs. I was aware of GM's policy of using road rather than rail, and there may well be merits in drawing that to the attention of the rail companies to see whether a deal can be put together.
I know that my hon. Friend is especially concerned about the implications that the announcement may have for Ellesmere Port. He will know that Nick Reilly in particular has made strong and supportive statements about the position there. I am sure we are all pleased that Ellesmere Port at least has not been affected by yesterday's announcement. We must find ways of strengthening the plant's position, so that it can go from strength to strength in the future.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Hundreds of my constituents who were employed by Vauxhall or its


suppliers are deeply shocked by this body blow. Their shock is compounded by the fact that, despite rumblings in the past about the possibility of such a decision, the Government seem once again to have been taken unawares.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the system of contingency planning that I established when I held his job, to prepare for and if possible avert problems of this kind? Will he tell us what discussions were held with Vauxhall about the impending decision, and when they were held? Will he also tell us what plans he has—if this sad decision is irrevocable—to expedite planning procedures on the site and the land around it, to ensure that that land is made free for the generation of jobs in the area to create work for those who have been displaced?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about planning procedures. I shall ask the groups that have now been set up to look closely at the question of regeneration and job creation opportunities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about mechanisms and procedures in the Department. We announced our package within five minutes of Vauxhall's making its announcement.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his speedy response to this terrible situation, which has affected hundreds of workers in my constituency, and will affect many firms in Stevenage and elsewhere in Hertfordshire. Will he do all he can to ensure that the remaining van and jeep production at the Luton plant is secured for the future, and that in future Vauxhall will take its workers into its confidence?

Mr. Byers: Yesterday's announcement included a positive commitment to confirming and maintaining Vauxhall's earlier decision to invest in the new van facility at Luton. We must obviously ensure that it remains true to that statement, but I have no doubt that, having reviewed the position in considerable detail and having now made a decision, it will do so.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern. No doubt many individuals, families and communities in Stevenage and, indeed, throughout Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, will be affected by yesterday's announcement. What we as a Government must do is work alongside those people to take them through what will a difficult and painful period of change. I have no doubt that—although it will be a difficult time—because of the economic climate that we have been able to create in the United Kingdom, we are in a far stronger position to deal with this body blow than we would have been five or 10 years ago.

Mr. John Redwood: Why will the Secretary of State not accept that we are seeing factory closure after factory closure and job loss after job loss throughout British manufacturing? There is a crisis in manufacturing in this country. The Government are over-regulating: they are taxing and regulating industry to death. Why will the Secretary of State not take some responsibility? Why will he not make it cheaper to make things in Britain? Why does he show such persistent callous indifference to the manufacturing crisis that he and his colleagues are creating?

Mr. Byers: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to Department of Trade and Industry issues. He last had

enough time to attend such a debate when he thought that Rover was going to collapse with the loss of 8,000 jobs. However, he was absent when I made the statement in the House that that was not the case. He is like a vampire at the blood bank—he appears if he thinks that there is a difficulty for British manufacturing.
If the right hon. Gentleman reads yesterday's statement by General Motors, he will see that none of the issues to which he referred is relevant. Redundancies were announced in Germany and north America, a region that he holds up as a good example. In reality, 10,000 jobs are being lost at General Motors worldwide. That has nothing to do with the issues that he raised. The sooner that he begins to talk about what we can do for individuals who are affected by the decision, the sooner he will have more respect, certainly from Labour Members.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the knock-on consequences of closures in the motor industry can be devastating for smaller and isolated communities. The recent announcement of the closure of Johnson Controls, a car seat manufacturer, in Silloth in my constituency is causing the death of the community and town. Can the Department of Trade and Industry establish a unit to look specifically at small and isolated communities that have little chance of attracting industry and replacing jobs, because otherwise the long-term prospects for such communities are dire?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vulnerability of communities that are based on one or two types of production. A diversified economy gives a community the strength to deal with such announcements, but it is very vulnerable if it is committed to one employer. We need to consider how we can assist those communities. The idea that my hon. Friend advances of having a unit or group of people to examine ways to help areas diversify into growing sectors of the future will be a useful and practical step for the Government to take.

Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the Secretary of State's surprise at having to make today's sad announcement, what steps will he take to improve the way in which his Department monitors the reaction in the motor industry and other vulnerable sectors to the tax and cost increase factors that must have led to the decision by General Motors? Did he receive, at any time in the past 12 months, an approach by General Motors about state aid so that car production could remain at Luton?

Mr. Byers: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's final question, the answer is no. My Department monitors the situation in the motor industry, as it does in many others.

Mr. Harry Barnes: This is a very important statement for the workers at Vauxhall who have lost their jobs and for Members of Parliament in the Luton area and elsewhere who are able to cross-examine the Secretary of State on the matter. There have been job losses in other firms such as Biwater in my constituency and Coats Viyella in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), and it is a pity that we have not had an opportunity to ask similar


questions. In fact, this is the first time since the problem emerged in the summer that I have had a chance to question the Secretary of State in this Chamber.
On Vauxhall, will the Secretary of State explain in more detail the regional selective assistance that is to be provided to the Luton area and whether it will be available to areas in the east midlands that are suffering in a similar way?

Mr. Byers: Regional selective assistance is available for Luton because of the changes that we have introduced to the assisted areas map, which is one criteria that needs to be satisfied before such assistance is made available. Some areas in the east midlands are on the new map. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman wrote to me the other day about two of his constituents in Clay Cross who are trying to establish a new business. As it is now in an assisted area, they could qualify for regional selective assistance.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Secretary of State was right to condemn the fact that the news was leaked. Will he investigate a report that I heard this morning about the leak coming from the Department of Trade and Industry after it was told the news on Monday? I hope he will take that matter seriously.
My main question is on the role that was played by the rip-off Britain campaign, in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department successfully attacked the motor industry and caused it to bring down prices. How has that affected the motor industry and the Vauxhall announcement?

Mr. Byers: The media will know where the leak came from, and they will say that it was not from the Department of Trade and Industry. On the substantive point about the price of new cars in the United Kingdom, a Competition Commission inquiry into that matter produced a clear report and we accepted its recommendations. Having had such clear recommendations from the Competition Commission, it would have been a terrible folly to ignore its precise findings. As a result, car prices in the United Kingdom are down by about £1,100 on average, which means that there will be a competitive environment. If we look at the reasons given by General Motors worldwide for the decisions taken yesterday, we can see that the United Kingdom Competition Commission report was not a major factor.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the same package of help is being made available to the 2,500 workers who have been made redundant from the clothing division of Coats Viyella, including 500 in my constituency which were announced on Monday? Those workers have also been treated shabbily by the company in terms of consultation and information. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the clothing and textile industry, 500,000 of them under the Tory Government. My constituents and others in the industry are angry that they do not get the same attention as others in the national media. They feel that it is because the industry has a majority of women workers.

Mr. Byers: It is a question of national media attention. As my hon. Friend knows, largely because of the work that she and other hon. Members who represent textile constituencies have done, this is an issue in which I have

been involved for some time. I can inform her that the full range of services and facilities will be made available from the Employment Service to help those who might be affected in the way that she has outlined. As I told her at Question Time last week, we always stand ready to meet constituency Members of Parliament to discuss continued Government assistance.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State has been at pains to avoid any personal responsibility for this disaster for British manufacturing. Will he show his sincerity and his belief that we need to protect British manufacturing by assuring the House that, when the Health Council meets in Europe tomorrow, he and the Government will vote against the tobacco workers directive, which will threaten between 2,000 and 10,000 jobs in tobacco manufacturing in this country? If he votes in favour of the directive, he will be voting in favour of abolishing 10,000 jobs in tobacco export and manufacturing.

Mr. Byers: General Motors referred to a number of issues in relation to its decision yesterday, but the tobacco workers directive was not one of them.

Mr. Richard Burden: I can tell my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in Luton and surrounding constituencies that, with Longbridge in my constituency, the people of the west midlands well understand what they will be going through and the anger that will be felt about the way that General Motors announced its decision. I imagine that they will take as dim a view of the cheap political point scoring that we saw from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), as they did over Rover where the official Opposition had nothing constructive to say.
The motor industry will remain a strategically important industry for this country and, if multinationals are making this sort of decision, we need to find ways of playing to our strengths. We must look at niche and medium-volume production, as we are doing successfully in Longbridge and look to an expansion of work in telematics, motor sport engineering and high performance engineering. Those are areas in which Britain already leads the world and we can do a lot more to build on and reinforce our motor industry, which is so strategically important to Britain.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about not neglecting the fact that there are areas of strength within the car industry in the UK—not only the niche markets to which he has referred, but companies such as Peugeot, which is doing well in Coventry, and Ford with Jaguar and with Land Rover in Solihull. There are some solid areas of car production in the UK. We need to build on those strengths.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we can develop beyond simple car production and manufacture to look at new areas and new techniques, genuinely playing to our strengths. There is real potential to do that, but there is little that the House can do today apart from reflect on the difficult situation that will be faced by thousands of hard-working people and their families in Luton and the surrounding communities. What the House must do, and what the Government certainly


will do, is ensure that we are at their side through this difficult period. We will not walk away from the problem. We will not leave it just to the market. We will work with those people to provide them with new opportunities for the future.
That is an active role for Government to play. It is the right role for Government—not second guessing commercial decisions by multinational companies, but working with people who are affected by the changes that have to take place in a global economy.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has met with Vauxhall and Nick Reilly. As late as October, there was absolutely no hint of restructuring, or possible closure of Luton.
Obviously, everyone is amazed by the sudden announcement and the sheer volume of jobs that will be lost not just in Luton, but throughout the supply chain, which will affect the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there will

be help not only to Luton, but to all the suppliers within the chain. I still believe that we should not roll over so quickly. We should take up the challenge with Vauxhall and see what else can be put there—see if other production can be moved in. After the success that he had with Rover, I do not think that we should give up quickly.

Mr. Byers: The supply chain will be an important area. Our experience in other situations, whether Ford at Dagenham or Rover at Longbridge, showed that, often, the supply chain was the most vulnerable sector; it felt the immediate consequences of a major announcement. Because of the relatively long lead-in period in relation to the announcement on Luton, there are greater opportunities to ensure that the difficulties elsewhere do not occur on this occasion, but my hon. Friend is right to make the point. Obviously, our attention is focused on Luton and on those directly affected by the announcement. That is understandable and right, but we need to be conscious of the impact that the announcement will have on the supply chain, which is why we are specifically putting in place a programme to help suppliers to diversify, to reskill and to retool where it is appropriate for them to do so.

Point of Order

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be well aware of the controversy surrounding the changes that the Government intend to make to the human fertilisation and embryology legislation. Strong views are held by Members on both sides of the House on that important issue. Therefore, it is of great importance that any changes be fully considered in the House, with Members enjoying full access to outside expertise.
On 7 December, the Leader of the House, who is in her place, announced a second debate for this Friday. She said:
we have already had a one-day debate on the matter on a Friday . that was followed by publication of draft regulations, which the House and those outside could study. The debate that I have just announced is a follow-up debate, in which the draft regulations can be discussed and in which Members can air their views.—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 123.]
Today, without warning, the Government produced new draft regulations, but gave no extra time for their consideration. Indeed, I understand that the House will be asked to make a final decision next Tuesday, less than four working days after publication of the draft regulations.
Many Members on both sides of the House will regard that as indecent haste on an important topic, and think that both the House of Commons and the public are being treated with contempt. In your role as the protector of the House's rights, can we prevail upon you to ask the Government to think again to give everyone involved in that important debate time to consider the changes that they have announced today?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. He will have an opportunity to ventilate his concerns during the debate on Friday.

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

[SIXTH DAY]

Order Read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 December],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir John Morris.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — The Economy

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Standing Order No.33 gives me the power on the last day of debate on the Loyal Address to select a second amendment, which will be moved formally and disposed of after 10 o'clock. I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Michael Portillo: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to reverse the policies that have given Britain an increasing burden of taxation and regulation, that it highlights the Government's failure to carry out the reforms it promised to make Britain a competitive and dynamic nation, that it contains no proposals to reverse the decline in Britain's productivity growth or the decline in the savings ratio, that it does nothing to ensure that the public accounts are honest and open, and that it contains no evidence of Her Majesty's Government having adopted a forward-looking approach to the challenges of the modern global economy.
I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
The Gracious Speech was intended to clear the decks for an election, but that was not the only reason it was so brief. It was the speech of a Government who are now entirely devoid of ideas. During the 18 years that Labour Members were in opposition, they developed only one idea, and that was to get themselves into power. Now that they are in office, they have nothing whatsoever to offer our people. So, with no vision for the next Parliament—

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way later in my speech.
With no vision for the next Parliament, the Government will be judged on their broken promises: on higher taxes, on poorer public services, and on their betrayal of the hopes that they raised so falsely.

Mr. Chris Pond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No.
Labour has taxed more and delivered less. Before the last election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he understood where previous Labour Governments had gone wrong. He said that they had been wrong to believe in tax and spend. He promised that this time it would be different, that Labour would reform the public services and would therefore be able to deliver improvements without having to raise taxes, but of course he has delivered the opposite.
The Labour manifesto proclaimed that Labour would be wise spenders, not big spenders. It said that what mattered was not how much was spent, but how well or badly it was spent. Now the Chancellor talks only one language, that of big spending—"Never mind the value or the quality", he says, "look at the quantity."
It took 18 years in opposition for the Labour party to learn wisdom and it has taken just three years for it to forget it all.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: Let me finish this passage.
The Chancellor is now committed to increasing Government spending over the next three years much faster than the growth rate of the economy, so we need to be told whether this is a policy for just three years. Is it a splurge which is announced just before an election to be followed by a painful return to reality afterwards? Is it a turning on of the taps now so that they can be turned off again in due course? Is it a bad old Labour policy of boom and bust? If it is—[Interruption.] There are many precedents of Labour spending and spending and then having to cut back. We have seen it all before. These are the lessons that the Chancellor said that he had learned, but he has not learned them. So is it a splurge? Will Departments rush to spend all the money before the closing down sale comes to an end? If so, it will produce very bad value and it will be a very bad policy.
Alternatively, does the Chancellor propose to continue raising Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy year after year, even after that three-year period? If that is the case it will lead to a bloated public sector increasingly squeezing out the private sector and private investment. It will mean that the Government will have to go on raising taxes year after year during the coming Parliament just as they have in this Parliament, and, just as has happened in this Parliament, the poorest in society will pay the most.
So the question for the Chancellor today is a very simple one. Which is it to be: will it be boom and bust—the three-year programme followed by the whole thing being switched off—or will it be a continuous increase in Government spending faster than the nation could afford, with the burden being borne by the poorest members of society?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Portillo: Why does the Chancellor not answer? It is either one or the other.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I can tell the House that we will meet our fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule—over the economic cycle. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give us an answer: does he propose a balanced Budget, or does he propose to support our fiscal rules? Yes or no?

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor's fiscal rules, unfortunately, are not worth the paper they are written on. I shall come to that later in my speech. I shall dissect the Chancellor's fiscal rules and show him why they are not worth anything. I have used as the basis for my planning the same figures for surplus and deficit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used in planning his rules.

Mr. Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman has said that this Government were spending over and above what the country could afford—the equivalent of £600 for every taxpayer. Does his maths extend to multiplying £600 by 27 million—the number of taxpayers in this country? Does he agree that the figure thus produced—£16 billion—is the amount that he believes the Government are spending over and above what they should be spending? What would the right hon. Gentleman cut to bring spending back to what he believed was in line with what the country could afford?

Mr. Portillo: I made all that clear in announcements that I made when I set out the proposals. With regard to the £16 billion, I shall quote Mr. Evan Davis, economics editor of the BBC's "Newsnight" programme. He said:
 Labour say it's a £16 billion spending cut, the Tories say it's £8 billion … on this one I think we can be definitive. The Tories are telling the truth, and only by wilfully misreading the Conservatives' spending plans can you call it £16 billion.

Mr. Frank Dobson: He is a Tory.

Mr. Portillo: It is only wilful misreading of the figures that allows the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) to say that the cuts will amount to £16 billion. It is about time that Labour put that stupid figure to bed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered my question about what his policy will be. However, I shall tell the House all about our policy.

Mr. Pond: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was able to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about whether he was still in favour of a balanced Budget. If he is, how will he fund the tax cuts that he proposes?

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in favour of a balanced Budget. He is planning to borrow. [Interruption.] It would be much better for the order of the House if the Chancellor stood up to make interventions. I have just told him that I am making my plans on the same figures for surpluses and deficits over the next three years that he is using. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) to claim that the Chancellor is planning a balanced Budget; he is not.

Mr. Gordon Brown: For the benefit of the House, the right hon. Gentleman should confirm that he put out a


press statement at the time of our spending review last July saying that our spending plans could not be afforded to the tune of £600 per taxpayer, or £16 billion. Also, will he now answer this question: if he does not accept our fiscal rules, which form the basis on which we will work, does he believe in a balanced Budget? Yes or no? If he believes in a balanced Budget, how can he fund tax cuts?

Mr. Portillo: I believe in greater prudence than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe in greater rectitude and in spending what the nation can afford. I believe in much tighter constraints on me, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, than the right hon. Gentleman has been willing to accept for himself. In the second half of my speech, I shall describe our rules, as well as tear his rules apart.

Mr. John Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of this Government's policy of tax, tax and tax again, tax freedom day—the day on which we cease to work for the Chancellor and start to work for ourselves—is now 30 May? That is fully 20 days worse than in the United States of America. How much more deterioration does my right hon. Friend expect if the Chancellor's tax and spend policies are continued?

Mr. Portillo: It is impossible to give my hon. Friend an accurate answer, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not tell us what his policy is. I have just asked him whether it is his policy to go on spending more than we can afford for three years or in perpetuity, and he would not answer. I suppose that we must assume it is his policy to go on spending more than we can afford in perpetuity. In the new year, I will produce the figure for the extra amount of taxation that would be required from every family in the country.
The Chancellor's abandoned pledge to be wise on spending is the first of five pledges on the economy that he made before the election, all of which have now been broken. He also pledged not to increase tax at all, but the burden of tax is now up by 2.6 percentage points of gross domestic product. That is £25 billion, the equivalent of 10p on the standard rate of income tax. He has taxed what people earn, what they spend and what they save. He has hit marriages, mortgages, alcohol, tobacco and petrol.
The Labour manifesto said:
Labour is not about high taxes on ordinary people
but that is exactly what the Labour Government have been about. Taxes have fallen most heavily on the poorest people in society, and Labour Members know the truth of that even though it is a truth that they dare not speak. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported this week that the Government have failed to attack the problem of poverty and inequality.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall not give way.
The third Labour pledge was not to impose burdensome regulations on business, but business taxes are up by £5 billion a year according to the Confederation of British Industry. The Institute of Directors states that the burden of regulation on business represents another £5 billion a year. Our tax advantage against the rest of the European

Community has been cut by two thirds according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Theresa Graham, who heads the Government's better regulation task force, says that
businesses are becoming more anti-government and are losing patience.
Even the trade union boss, Ken Jackson, says that the Government need to deal more fairly with business. [Interruption.] Labour Members ought to listen.
Fourthly, the Government pledged to promote a savings culture. The savings ratio is now at a 37-year low, according to the Office for National Statistics. Information from the House of Commons Library states that the Chancellor's policies will soon have brought one half of all our pensioners into means-tested benefits. Half our retired people will now be required to give their intimate details to the Government to get benefit. However, the Chancellor is still taking £5 billion a year from the pension funds of people who are now saving for their retirement. He is attacking the people who are trying to do the right thing and want to be independent. He is impoverishing future generations of pensioners, driving more and more of them to be dependent on the state.
Fifthly, Labour promised to make Britain more competitive, but Britain has slipped behind. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says that our economy has grown by 2.6 per cent. over the past three years. That is worse than our record in the previous 15 years and a good deal less than the achievement of the countries of the eurozone, which have had growth of 2.9 per cent. and about half the figure for the United States. The OECD also states that our share of exports is down. The Chancellor promised to transform our productivity and, yes, in his own particular way he has transformed it. In the past four years, our productivity growth has averaged 1.3 per cent. a year against an average of 3.1 per cent. in the early 1990s.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No.
Thirteen OECD countries have a better record on unemployment than Britain does. We have heard today with great sadness about the job losses at Vauxhall, but the problems of the car industry will get worse next year, when the Chancellor imposes an energy tax on our business that will cost every car manufacturer £1 million a year. The manufacturers in the rest of Europe will not face that burden. Again, I give the Chancellor the opportunity to promise that he will abandon this job-destroying tax, which will make life so much more difficult for our car manufacturers.

Mr. Bercow: The Chancellor is laughing about it.

Mr. Portillo: Yes, I see that, too. The Chancellor laughs about his job-destroying tax. This is a Chancellor—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall not give way. I am going to talk about the Chancellor. This is a Chancellor—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

Mr. Portillo: This is a Chancellor who thinks that he is cleverer than everyone around him, and cleverer than those sitting behind him. He is the clever so-and-so who devised the stealth taxes, and they were too clever by half. Any of those hon. Members behind the Chancellor, whom he holds—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough sedentary interventions.

Mr. Portillo: Any of those hon. Members sitting behind the Chancellor—those people he holds in such intellectual contempt—could have told him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Do hon. Gentlemen deny it? I do not think so. Any of them could have told the Chancellor that the tax on petrol was not actually a stealth tax; it was displayed in blazing figures on every garage forecourt in the country. It was not so much a stealth tax as a neon-lit, 1 ft-high, you could not miss it in a blizzard tax, but the Chancellor proceeded with it. His Back Benchers could have told him—

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: I will in a moment.
If the Chancellor had been listening, his Back Benchers could have told him that pensioners would not take the 75p insult lying down. Only a Chancellor who is hopelessly out of touch with the British people could have acted so, without sparing a thought for the hardships being faced by pensioners and families.
Labour's summer of discontent had just one cause and one author: the man who is sitting opposite me—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still wholly unrepentant. Labour is never having to say one is sorry. Even now, the Chancellor still refuses to acknowledge in the House that the tax burden is up, even though his own figures—distorted as they are—prove it to be perfectly true. So, he has banned Ministers from using the expression "tax burden". First, he taxed stealthily; now he wants to tax silently. He hopes that by banishing the thought, he can banish the concept. A Government who claim to be in touch with ordinary people tell families that taxes are not a burden but some sort of opportunity.
Even if Labour was never believed by the British people about what it would do on tax, the British people at least hoped that it would deliver on public services—but how they were deceived about that. We were told that Labour would save the national health service. Three and a half years on, waiting lists are longer and the Prime Minister predicts a crisis in the health service. If it is Labour and it is winter, there must be discontent.
Labour election posters promised smaller class sizes. Three and a half years on, the Labour party's own website says that class sizes in secondary schools are rising very slowly. That passes for candour under new Labour. Teachers are leaving; they have been let down and they are voting with their feet. Even this Government cannot blame the previous Conservative Government for the fact that teachers have lost patience with the Labour Government.
The Government promised to be tough on crime, but there are fewer police officers and the number of bobbies on the beat is the lowest for a decade. Crime is rising;

serious offenders are being released before their sentence has been served. Violent crime is up by a sixth—all of that, two years after the Chancellor told The Sun that they were determined to get value for every penny they spent.
Anyone who believed the Chancellor then should take a short ride on the Jubilee line. The dome is a stinking mess of incompetence and shoddy accounting. Millions of hard-working punters have bought their lottery tickets week after week merely to see Ministers squander that money. Was that money not meant to be used for good causes? Would not £800 million spent on the dome have bought another Great Ormond street hospital for sick children in Manchester and one in Leeds, one in Newcastle and another in Bristol, with money left over?

Mr. Phil Hope: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Do not he and his party support mixed economy funding for the health service? Will he now rule out charging patients for consulting their GP as part of Conservative policy?

Mr. Portillo: That is no part of our policy. If I may so, it is a very stupid question.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman; I happily give way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman says that he would have spent the money for the dome on hospitals. I understand that all his colleagues spent the past three years arguing that they did not want lottery money to be spent on the NHS.

Mr. Portillo: I said no such thing. I said that £800 million is an awful lot of money. I said that everything in the lottery was meant to be for good causes—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tries to make light of £800 million; he knows the truth. I do not suppose that his constituents are any happier than anyone else's that £800 million was spent on that piece of vanity when it could have been spent on much better things.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the shadow Chancellor clarify for the House whether, when he was in government, he urged his Cabinet colleagues not to spend money on the dome, but to spend it on hospitals? If so, that is welcome news for which I shall credit the right hon. Gentleman. However, that is certainly not what was reported.

Mr. Portillo: The disaster of the dome was the way in which it was planned by the Government. That was a disgrace. [Laughter.] The public know that, and know that it is a monument to new Labour. The dome was supposed to have been on the first page of the new Labour manifesto. It has new Labour fingerprints all over it, which is why people are so angry with the Government.

Mr. Clive Efford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I shall keep going.
The Government have broken all their promises and have taxed more and delivered less. The Gracious Speech shows that they have no vision for the future. The Opposition have a vision, founded on a disciplined approach to macro-economic management. We will be ruled by five disciplines: first, we will have our own currency; secondly, we will increase the independence of the Bank of England; thirdly, we will set up a fiscal policy watchdog; fourthly, we will establish a national accounts commission; and fifthly, the Government will spend only what the nation can afford.

Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I shall keep going at this point.
My policy is to keep the pound. The Chancellor wants to scrap it, and he has devised five completely subjective tests to hide behind until the Government believe that they can get away with that. We plan our policy on the basis of Britain's having its own autonomous monetary policy. The Chancellor is unable to say whether his plans for the next Parliament are based on Britain's having such a policy. That is a glaring gap at the centre of his policies.
We shall make the Bank of England more independent. The Chancellor wants to take away its powers. His policy is to let the European central bank set interest rates. At the next election, there will be only one party fighting for Britain's interest rates to be set by an independent Bank of England, and that will be the Conservative party.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I will not give way while I am going through this sequence.

Mr. Davies: What about the fiscal committee?

Mr. Portillo: I have not got to the fiscal committee yet.
I plan to put an end to the Chancellor's spin on and distortion of the making of economic policy. I will establish a committee of expert commentators to sustain an open debate about economic policy making.
The Chancellor claims to be tied by fiscal rules, but they tie him to nothing. The so-called golden rule that allows him to borrow for so-called investment would enable him to borrow between £150 billion and £300 billion over the cycle, depending on what he chose to call investment. No wonder he has to repeat the word "prudence" again and again, like a man trying to convince himself. The more he spoke of his honesty, the faster we counted the spoons.
We have had enough of the Chancellor distorting the figures and disguising his tax increases. We have had enough of Budgets that are all spin and that fail to tell the public that he has raided their savings or put petrol up by three times more than pensions. We are tired of him massaging the statistics and claiming that Government spending is not Government spending. The OECD and the ONS are fed up with him too, and have criticised him for his sleight of hand. We shall therefore appoint a national accounts commission to put the nation's accounts on a proper footing.
The Chancellor thinks that Government statistics should tell a story, but we believe that they should tell the truth. My policy is for the Government to spend what the country can afford. Having promised so much before, the Chancellor now promises the earth whether the country can afford it or not. Ours is the only genuinely sustainable policy. It allows tax cuts for hard-working families, pensioners and businesses. Those who would follow a different path should say where the money would come from. The Conservative party never forgets that it is the people's money.

Mr. Pond: rose—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that he would take a disciplined approach to public borrowing. He wants to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I remind him that he has already been a Treasury Minister. When he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, his disciplined approach to public borrowing resulted in a public sector borrowing requirement of £47 billion in his first year and £50 billion in his second. One of the economy measures that he pushed through to try to put that right was to reduce the number of nurses going into training to a measly 12,000. That is one reason why the national health service is so short of nurses now.

Mr. Portillo: All the right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong for the years in which I was at the Treasury. However, I agree that there are dangers when an economy goes into recession. Consequently, any prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer would plan to grow public spending by less than the underlying trend growth rate of the economy. If that is not done, we will end up in the same difficulties again. Only a man with the arrogance of the current Chancellor could believe that the economic cycle has been abolished.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman said that I misled the House. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1992–93 and 1993–94. The official figures show that the borrowing total was £47 billion in 1992–93, and £50 billion in 1993–94. On top of that, the figures show that almost 3 million people were out of work at that time, compared with slightly more than 1 million today.

Mr. Portillo: I tell the right hon. Gentleman this: we have reached a state of affairs with the Labour party in which every figure is fiddled, everything is distorted, and everything is spun. It can barely surprise anyone that no Opposition Member, no Labour Member and no member of the public believes a word that it says about anything.

Mr. Efford: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No; I shall make some progress.
It is outrageous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer postures as the pensioners' friend. Before the general election, he promised to end means-testing for pensioners. Now, he has done exactly the opposite. There is more


means-testing, more form filling, less dignity. We have proposals on this—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. Those who receive the state pension know that the current Chancellor will give them a pittance whenever he can get away with it, and a fiver whenever it is an election year. By increasing the mean-tested supplementary pension, the Chancellor himself drives home the point that he recognises that the retirement pension is inadequate, yet, he has no vision for the future, no plan to rectify the situation, no care for reform.
The problem is that this year's national insurance contributions pay this year's pensioners. The money is never invested and never grows, so pensioners are not able to participate in the growing wealth of the nation. We want to give young people the option of paying their contributions into a fund that would be invested and that would grow.

Ms Sally Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: I shall shortly.
Such an arrangement would be much more likely to provide future generations of pensioners with much better pensions.

Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: Not if the hon. Lady keeps yelling at me.
Such an arrangement would also, over time, sharply reduce the burden on future generations of taxpayers. The Chancellor's policy is to discourage saving and to raid the pension funds of those who are saving for their retirement to fund his spending spree today. Our policy is to encourage the young to save, so that they can look forward to retirement free from means-testing and free from financial worry.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given that, under the Conservatives' plans the national insurance fund would have not only to pay pensions to current pensioners but contribute towards the pensions of a future generation, would the right hon. Gentleman cut pensions to make up the gap? If not, which tax would he increase to fund the proposed addition?

Mr. Portillo: I would not go down either route.

Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little point in the hon. Lady seeking to intervene when the shadow Chancellor is responding to an intervention that he has already received.

Mr. Portillo: I would not go down either route. However, I am shocked by the implied timidity of the question asked by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). We have a huge liability to pay pensions decades and decades ahead, and it is a real liability. The Government like to pretend that that liability does not exist, and that is why we now have national accounts that do not identify it. However, the liability

exists. Are we incapable in politics today of having a mature debate about how we could remove that liability? We can do that only on the basis of national consensus and on the basis of the financial community believing that it is the right thing to do. What a contrast—the Conservative party is willing to address serious issues that will affect generations of taxpayers and pensioners; we have the imagination, whereas the Labour party and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell lack it.

Ms Keeble: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No, I must make progress. I have been on my feet for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are you tired?"] No, I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. There have been enough sedentary interventions—consistent, organised interventions—and the shadow Chancellor should be heard with patience.

Mr. Portillo: I referred to the length of time I have been on my feet out of courtesy to right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak later in the debate.
We also propose that, in future, windfall receipts from further sales of the bandwidth spectrum should be used to endow some of our universities so that they no longer depend on a drip feed, year by year, from the state. Clearly, one effect of that would be to reduce the size of the state and the level of Government spending. Another effect would be to enable our universities to play a much more dynamic role in our economy. A university such as Stanford, in California, became the intellectual powerhouse behind Silicon valley. Some of our best universities want the same freedom to play a more dynamic role in the British economy.
When Opposition Members speak of British universities, it is to enable them to flourish. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses the subject of our great universities, it is merely to attack them, playing to a gallery of envy and prejudice. The Chancellor put the proceeds of the telecom licence sales into Government bonds. We will invest the fruits of the knowledge society in the knowledge economy.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: No; I have nearly finished.
On health care, we have established a political consensus with the Labour party on providing significant additional funds for the national health service. However, Conservatives believe that that should not be the end of the discussion. Very few countries in Europe attempt, as Britain does, to bear almost the entire cost of health care on taxation alone.

Mr. Roger Casale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he might learn something.
Our neighbours in Europe have more mixed systems. For example, employers and trade union health care schemes play a much more significant part in the total health budget in many other countries. That has enabled


such countries to spend significantly higher proportions of their national prosperity on health care than we do in Britain. Surely, except to the most blinkered and ideological individuals, that is a lesson that could help Britain have more doctors, nurses and hospitals.
Every week, the Prime Minister misrepresents our commitment to the national health service. However, the Government will pay the price. It is the Government who are blinkered. They are the ones who live in fear of change, wedded to an ideology suited to the 1940s and absolutely unsuited to the new century.

Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will remember that he made a speech in the House about the health service on 18 January. He described the setting up of the national health service as a historical accident, rather than the crowning achievement of the post-war Labour Government, and the public funding of the health service as a national disgrace, rather than something that has great popular consent. Two weeks later, he was made shadow Chancellor. Is it still his policy to try to privatise the health service by introducing charging and making patients pay for hip replacements, knee replacements and so on? If not, how does he propose to pay for the NHS?

Mr. Portillo: It is possible that there would be some respect for the hon. Gentleman if he did not distort what other people had said. He says that he can find the word "disgrace" in my speech. Will he get up now and tell me where I used the word "disgrace"?

Mr. Casale: I shall read the passage to the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
 Given that this country has what appears, at least on paper, to be the most socialist of all health services that I can think of—as Geoffrey Rivett would say, at least outside the old eastern bloc—it is a national disgrace that this is the country where having money makes the biggest difference—[Official Report, 18 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 735.]

Mr. Portillo: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace because he comes to this place and distorts what others have said. No one will have any respect for the hon. Gentleman when he does that.

Mr. Casale: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is getting up to apologise. That was a complete—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Casale: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All hon. Members must sit down when I am on my feet.

Mr. Portillo: I will give way to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) only if he is going to apologise for that disgraceful misrepresentation of what I said.
Labour spent 18 years in opposition and the British people were willing to back Labour only when it committed itself to low taxes and to good value in public spending. The Government were elected to improve public services and reform the welfare state. They promised business that they

would make Britain more prosperous. They talked the talk but could not walk the walk. In office, they have piled on taxes and regulations and Britain has slipped behind.
Labour has broken every promise. People have paid the tax but now they wait longer for operations; they have paid the tax but school classes have got bigger; they have paid the tax but there is not a policeman to be seen.
In the 1970s, the Chancellor wrote books. He ranted then against Thatcherism and the market economy. Now, as Chancellor, he remains trapped by dogma, unable to think new ideas. The Conservative party is different. Our policies are based on honesty and transparency—things for which, after three years of Labour Government, the people of this country hunger. We are not afraid to propose change. Our policies are shaped to make Britain competitive in the 21st century.
The Gracious Speech provided telling proof not of a Government who have run out of ideas, but of a party that never had any in the first place. The Labour manifesto was all spin and the Labour Government are all spin and no delivery.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I will speak about our economic agenda for the coming year, entrenching stability, improving employment and productivity, raising living standards for all and strengthening public investment in our services.
In his speech, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), could not tell us what fiscal rules a Conservative Government would operate if they were ever in government. I will happily give way now if he can tell us. Given that he does not accept our fiscal rules, does he believe in a balanced budget?
The right hon. Gentleman also outlined—I will return to this—a Conservative plan for the privatisation of the basic pension for young people, but he could not explain to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), how much money could be lost to the national insurance fund and therefore to pensioners for present and future pensions that have to be paid. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he planned a mixed economy for the national health service. He ruled out charges for doctors, but refused to tell us what that involved—whether it is charges for hospitals or private medical insurance, or whether it will mean moving people out of the national health service, as the shadow health spokesman proposes, by performing what he calls non-urgent operations in private hospitals.
We will take no lectures on taxation from the right hon. Gentleman, who was at the Treasury between 1992 and 1994. He was the Chief Secretary who piloted through the House value added tax on fuel, the insurance tax, the airports tax, the freezing of the personal allowance for income tax and the allowance for top rate taxation, the national insurance rises, and the fuel duty escalator. He did so after promising at the previous general election that there would be no VAT on fuel—indeed, no tax rises at all.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but surely the shadow Chancellor should


answer why he should be trusted on taxation when he broke every promise when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I will give way to someone who wants to speak for him—one who is still a member of the No Turning Back group.

Mr. Bercow: That was a long-winded apologia. Why in the speech on the pre-Budget report did the right hon. Gentleman fail even to mention his 7.5 per cent. increase in the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions, which will hit up to 1 million working people? Is he proud of the fact that, as a result of that stealth tax, 20,000 nurses, 9,000 policemen and 23,000 teachers will face a tax hike of up to £200 a year?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should really do his research before he comes to the House of Commons. I answered all those points in detail at a meeting of the Select Committee on the Treasury, when I pointed out to him that the measure on national insurance was announced in the 1999 Budget. It was in the Red Book for 2000.

Mr. Bercow: I was not there.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is denying that, I shall happily give way so that he can explain why.

Mr. Bercow: There is a good reason why I was not present at the meeting of the Treasury Committee. Quite simply, I am not a member of that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is getting confused. Will he confirm that 20,000 nurses, 9,000 policemen and 23,000 teachers will be worse off as a result of the policy that he has introduced? If not, it is about time that he explained himself.

Mr. Brown: What I said to the hon. Gentleman—again, let us have accuracy—was that, if he had done his research properly, he would have known that the measure was in the 1999 Budget. That was made clear at the time. I explained to the Treasury Committee that the allegations that the Conservatives first made in The Daily Telegraph, which they then tried to make to the Daily Mail, and subsequently, over a number of weeks, they tried to give the impression that the measure had never been announced, when it was announced in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should accept that that is the case.
As for taxation, what did the hon. Gentleman say to nurses and teachers when VAT was put on fuel? What did he say when national insurance was put up for everyone? What did he say when personal allowances were frozen? What did he say when airport tax and insurance tax were introduced? What did he say then?

Mr. Bercow: I was not a Member of Parliament at the time.

Mr. Brown: Oh, there are different ways in which people try to excuse themselves from taking responsibility for the Conservative party's work in government. The hon. Gentleman, who is a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, does not want to defend the record of the

previous Conservative Government. I know that there is a split between him and the shadow Chancellor, because the hon. Gentleman has not left the No Turning Back group. He should make up his mind. Does he want to defend the Conservative party when it was in government or does he not?
We will not take any lectures from the Conservative party or the shadow Chancellor on public spending. After all, in October 1997, following the general election, the shadow Chancellor explained that the Conservative party was unpopular because of damaging cuts in public spending. In his lecture of October 1997, he said that the Tories were linked to harshness and thought to be uncaring about unemployment, about poverty, about poor housing, about disability, about single parenthood and were thought to favour greed. If the shadow Chancellor really believes that, he should think twice about proposals for privatisation or deep cuts in our public services.
We should not take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor on the running of the economy. After all, in September 1998, he said that of course, it—meaning the Conservative party—should be apologetic about the mismanagement of the economy. The shadow Chancellor now comes before us to criticise the record of the Labour Government, but he knows perfectly well that he understood the Conservative Government to have been guilty of mismanagement of the economy.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is here, and he recently said in the House of Commons:
We made the most dreadful mistakes.
It is the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said that. He went on to say:
we did many things … of which we are deeply ashamed.—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 493.]
So they should be. The idea that Conservative Members can come to the House and say that they have a manifesto on which they will go to the country, only to repeat the mistakes of the 1992 to 1997 period or the period from 1979 onwards, is something that the electorate will not accept.

Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Chancellor agree that borrowing for current expenditure is taxation deferred? Labour tax rises can therefore be considered to be Conservative tax rises.

Mr. Brown: We do not accept that. We have published forecasts on the growth of the economy and the fiscal position. It would be interesting to know the fiscal position of the Liberal Democrats, as they seem to have a rule that changes every day. Every day that we invest something, they always want more. Does the Liberal Democrat party agree with the Conservative party that there should be a balanced budget? Is that its policy? Or does it agree with the golden rule? Perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Treasury matters can tell us?

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Mr. Brown: Ah, another person who was a member of the No Turning Back group.

Mr. Leigh: I do not know why the Chancellor is so interested in a Tory dining club. Obviously, we are making our point. What is the Chancellor's current


estimate for the surplus over the lifetime of the next Parliament? As every economic commentator accepts that that is a large sum, thanks to the increase in stealth taxation, will he accept that there is considerable scope for tax rises and for maintaining essential public services? What is his estimate for the surplus over the lifetime of the next Parliament?

Mr. Brown: That is an interesting question. We have rules. The current budget must balance over the cycle. In other words, tax revenues must be equivalent to current public expenditure. That is a clear fiscal rule. We take the view that, given 20 years of under-investment in our social fabric, borrowing to invest in public services, such as transport, health and education, is necessary. That is why we say that, if there is a prudent and sustainable level of debt to GDP—that is the mechanism that we have chosen and which is examined by the National Audit Office—it is right in certain circumstances to borrow for investment.
Those are our two fiscal rules. Those are the rules that show that there will be a current surplus over the cycle. We will borrow if necessary for the public investment that our country needs, subject to a sustainable debt to GDP ratio. The sustainable ratio is below 40 per cent. In fact, as I reported to the House a few weeks ago, it is falling to 30 per cent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute, but perhaps the shadow Chancellor will now answer my question. If he professes to be putting forward a more rigorous economic and fiscal policy than we are, if he does not accept those two fiscal rules, which are the discipline upon our Government—if he believes that those rules are not a proper discipline—perhaps he can say whether his rule is to go for a balanced budget. If his rule is for a balanced budget, how in the world can the Leader of the Opposition propose tax cuts at the next general election? I will give the shadow Chancellor the opportunity to answer that question, then I shall allow surrogates for him to come in if necessary. I responded to the shadow Chancellor at the beginning of the debate—

Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question.

Mr. Brown: I did. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor does not want to know that we work within those two fiscal rules. They may be technical rules, but they are fiscal rules that are understood. The question that he must answer is whether he faces a balanced budget—yes or no?

Mr. Portillo: Is it the Chancellor's policy to increase Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for three years or beyond the three years—yes or no?

Mr. Brown: As I say, my policy is to work within our fiscal rules. It is precisely because there is under-investment in our social fabric that we are investing.

Mr. Portillo: Will the Chancellor give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question. Does he believe in a balanced budget—yes or no?

Mr. Portillo: Why will the Chancellor not answer my question? Is his policy to go on spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for just three years or beyond the three years? A very simple question—please answer it.

Mr. Brown: We will work within our fiscal rules. Our fiscal rules are over the cycle. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that those fiscal rules are over the cycle. The current budget must balance. In other words, current expenditure must be financed by tax revenues over the cycle. We will borrow for necessary investment, but subject to a sustainable debt to GDP ratio.
Those are the two rules. They are understood in the economic community. The shadow Chancellor may wish to attack them. They are well understood and commented on generally. The question that the shadow Chancellor must answer is what is his rule. Is it a balanced budget, in which case he has no scope for tax cuts? He is deceiving the electorate if he believes that he can go to the electorate and say that he wants a balanced budget and tax cuts. Is it a balanced budget or not? He used to believe in a balanced budget. Some Conservative Members still believe in a balanced budget.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) certainly believes in a balanced budget.
I have given the shadow Chancellor my two rules. He may disagree with them, but they are the two rules. Does he believe in a balanced budget—yes or no?

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor's rules are inadequate. I will impose extra disciplines; I have set out and named five disciplines. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will raise Government spending faster than the growth rate of the economy for only three years, or beyond? If it is beyond, that means extra taxes and he should be honest with the British people. If it is only for three years, it is boom and bust, bad spending and a bad policy. Of course, it is a bad policy anyway, as it squeezes out the private sector. Why cannot he tell us: three years or more than three years?

Mr. Brown: The House will know that I have answered the question. The fiscal rules will be observed. We have observed them over the past three and a half years and we will do so over the next period. We are investing where it is necessary to do so, subject to a debt to GDP ratio that has fallen from 40 per cent. towards 30 per cent. Those are our two fiscal rules. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in a balanced budget? If he cannot answer that question, everything that the Leader of the Opposition is saying about tax cuts is hollow.
The shadow Chancellor denied that he had said that there was a difference of £16 billion between our spending plans and what could be afforded. I have the statement that he issued.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Before the Chancellor moves on from the question of the balanced budget—

Mr. Brown: I know that there are many factions in the Conservative party, but I want to deal with one at a time. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not share the views of the shadow Chancellor.
Under the headline, "Labour Return to Tax and Spend say Conservatives", the shadow Chancellor was quoted directly as saying:
 What's more they are now committed to increasing spending quicker than the economy is growing. Their extra spending, over and above what the country can afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer.
Worked out over the 28 million taxpayers, that is £16 billion. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny issuing that statement?

Sir Peter Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Brown: That is a question for the shadow Chancellor

Sir Peter Tapsell: If my right hon. Friend will not answer, I will have to do so.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman might wish to be the shadow Chancellor—and would, indeed, be more effective in that role—but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to answer our question: does he believe in a balanced budget or not? I thought that that was simple. It is simple for some Back Benchers.

Sir Peter Tapsell: It is too simple. I shall explain why if the right hon. Gentleman sits down.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance. I am pleased that he is not asking a question about Europe today. Or perhaps he is.
The shadow Chancellor can now answer my question. Did he or did he not say:
Their extra spending, over and above what the country afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer?
That is £16 billion. Will he confirm or deny that statement? He gave the House the impression that he had never used those figures.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the Chancellor given way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the Chancellor that if no hon. Member is offering to intervene, there is little point in him sitting down for a long time. If he does so, another hon. Member will inevitably fill the gap.

Mr. Brown: 1 am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us put on record that the shadow Chancellor has refused to tell us what his fiscal rule is. The Conservatives used to say that it was a balanced budget or working towards a balanced budget, but the right hon. Gentleman has refused to tell us. We know why he cannot do so. If he gives the impression that he supports a balanced budget—1 believe that he probably does—he will be admitting that he cannot afford any tax cuts. That is the position. The right hon. Gentleman can now correct me by telling us whether he believes in a balanced budget, but I believe that this has already been a very illuminating occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the Tories never had in mind the £16 billion figure. I have just read out the statement to which my hon. Friend the Member for

Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred—£600 per taxpayer, or £16 billion. The Conservatives believe that £16 billion cannot be afforded above what has been allocated—properly, in their view. They would prefer cuts of £16 billion. The statement issued by the shadow Chancellor proves that to be the case.

Mr. Portillo: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way if the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that statement.

Mr. Portillo: I set out very clearly the fact that we intend to vary the Government's spending plans by £8 billion, and to give tax cuts to pensioners, savers, businesses and all the people who have been clobbered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The independent economics editor of the BBC, Evan Davis, said:
Labour say it's a £16 billion spending cut, the Tories say it's £8 billion. And on this one I think we can be definitive. The Tories are telling the truth and only by wilfully misreading the Conservatives' spending plans can you call it £16 billion.
Why does the Chancellor go on with this rubbish? Is it simply because the Labour party has invested so much in posters and leaflets that will now have to be torn up? Why cannot it address reality? Why does it have to distort and spin and twist the truth in every single instance?

Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor seems to want to believe the economics editor of the BBC before he believes himself. The right hon. Gentleman said:
That extra spending, over and above what the country can afford, is equivalent to £600 for every taxpayer.
That amounts to £16 billion. That statement was issued by the shadow Chancellor; it is in his name. It states:
Released by: The Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP
on Tuesday 18 July 2000. It even has a time for the release of the statement.
We have established two things today that will be very significant in future months. The Conservatives cannot tell us whether they believe in a balanced budget or not. They have no fiscal rules. The shadow Chancellor made a statement about the £16 billion figure, and he is unable to deny it, other than by quoting a secondary source. Given that it was he who made the statement, it would be better if he were able to deny it himself.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and then I shall make some progress.

Sir Peter Tapsell: All this time-wasting waffle with which the Chancellor has been padding out his speech is nonsense. He keeps making the absurdly over-simplistic point about there being some wonderful rule based on a balanced budget, which will be for the lifetime of the cycle. The economic community does not take that very seriously because nobody knows the length of the cycle. If only the Chancellor could grasp that. We do not know how long the cycle will last, or whether it will be one of prosperity or depression. Mr. Greenspan and all of the


economic community in America are locked in an intellectual argument about whether there will be a soft landing or a hard landing. The Chancellor is not addressing his mind to those serious points; he is just talking schoolboy economics.

Mr. Brown: When the previous Conservative Government said that they would balance the budget over the cycle, that should never have been believed, either.
I give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham.

Mr. John Redwood: My constituents understand that the Government have put taxes up a lot. They can see and feel that, and they are prepared to believe that this Government are spending more than the previous Government. However, what they find odd is the fact that they do not have enough policemen, teachers, doctors or nurses. They have fewer of many of them than under the previous Conservative Government. When will some of that money get through to pay the wages of the people whom we want, instead of buying an army of spin doctors and bogus advice for the Chancellor?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is now a supporter of public spending. That is a conversion indeed. He said at lunchtime in a speech that was issued by the Press Association that the divide in the Conservative party was not really between the mods and the rockers, because there was only one rocker, namely, the shadow Home Secretary, but between the Europhiles and the Eurosceptics. I believe that that is the position from which he comes on just about everything.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about public spending, will he support the £5 billion extra a year that we are putting into education? Will he support the 20 per cent. rise in transport spending—our £180 billion plan for transport—that we are proposing, which the shadow Chancellor refuses to support? Will he support the extra expenditure on law and order—the 6 per cent. real terms increase a year? Will he therefore now support our public spending plans? I think that he would agree with me that it is impossible to get doctors, nurses and other people to serve in our public services unless we have the money to pay their salaries. If he agrees with that, he has become a supporter of the Government's plans and will be, once again, at odds with the shadow Chancellor.

Mr. John Maples: I hope that the Chancellor can help the House to understand something about his golden rule. If current spending grows faster than GDP, is it not inevitable that taxes must grow faster than GDP as well?

Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our rule. Current spending must be balanced by current revenues. That is the point of the rule, which applies over the cycle. Current public spending over this Parliament, if he looks at the figures, is 2.25 per cent. The difference, I suspect, between him and me is that while he wants to believe in a balanced budget, he will not show disloyalty to the shadow Chancellor, at least in the Chamber, although he will disagree with me. I suspect that that is his position. He obviously does not want to respond to that point. We think that it is right, given the needs of public investment in health, education, transport and our public services generally, that we should

borrow where necessary for investment, subject to the discipline that we have upheld—the debt to GDP ratio will fall from 40 per cent.
As we have repaid so much debt this year—I thought that the shadow Chancellor might have applauded us for that—the debt to GDP ratio is falling to 30 per cent. Again, he has failed to answer the question: does he support a balanced budget or not? That is at the heart of the Conservatives' campaign. They want tax cuts, but they cannot tell us whether they support a balanced budget. Indeed, because they are in such a mess, they cannot offer any fiscal rules.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories cannot suggest fiscal rules because their express policy is to establish a new independent committee of economic advisers, presumably with Evan Davis on it, to oversee fiscal policy? They have no ideas of their own and no idea of how to run the economy—they want independent ideas. The public do not trust the Tories, so they say that someone else will run their policy.

Mr. Brown: I am not sure that that is an entirely new idea. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is here, and he would agree that the introduction of the wise men before the Bank of England became independent was an innovation that happened under his Government as they tried to meet the inflation target and sought independent advice. Far from the idea being a great innovation in economic policy, it is simply a repetition of what has been done.
Again, we come back to this straightforward issue: if the Tories believe that £16 billion is the difference between what we are spending and what we can afford, they should have the courage of their convictions to say that. That is what the debate in the No Turning Back group has been about. If the Tories believe in a balanced budget, they should tell us that that is what they believe in. If they believe in a balanced budget, they cannot tell the electorate that they promise tax cuts. The way in which the debate has developed has been very illuminating.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Chancellor give way?

Mr. Brown: Once more, then I must make progress.

Mr. Ross: I am not a member of the Conservative party, but I am interested in what the Chancellor said about the ratio of public debt to GDP. He did not make clear to the House what ratio he had in mind or whether that ratio was to total public sector debt or to central Government debt. Will he please elucidate?

Mr. Brown: The public sector debt is set out in the Red Book. We seek a figure of less than 40 per cent. Of course, in other countries debt can be a lot higher. We have reduced debt from the 44 per cent. that we inherited after national debt doubled—partly under the stewardship of the shadow Chancellor—to 33 per cent. It is falling to 30 per cent. in the next two or three years. The idea that we have not pursued a disciplined policy is completely outrageous. Again, the Conservative party cannot tell us whether it supports a balanced budget—three and a half


years in opposition, four shadow Chancellors, lots of policy statements, and it cannot give us an answer to that simple question. That has been revealed this evening.
Now, the four challenges that we face as a Government are these: first, to entrench a culture of low—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have been very generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who has exposed the fact that he does not do research for these occasions.
The first challenge is to entrench a culture of stability and low inflation. That is why I believe that the whole House should be pleased that inflation is at its lowest for 30 years. Our second challenge is to seize the opportunity to build from the record 27.9 million men and women in work to a situation in which this country can achieve the goal of full employment.
We should coach the hard to employ—the young under-25s. We should bring the number of single parents in work up to 70 per cent. over the next decade. We should give the same responsibilities and rights to the partners of the unemployed, both to seek work and to get help in doing so. We should do more to help the disabled, many of whom want the chance to get back to work, but who, over the past 20 years, were denied the right to work. We should have the same regime of rights and responsibilities for the long-term unemployed. None of that could be achieved if we did what the Opposition want to do—abolish the new deal. I hope that the Conservative party will think twice about what ought to have been a bipartisan consensus: we should have a new deal in which young people and the young unemployed have the chance to get work.
The third challenge for our country is to build family prosperity—family prosperity for not just some but all our citizens. That is why we favour the working families tax credit, and why we will introduce a new children's tax credit.
The Conservatives plan to abolish the working families tax credit. Even Ronald Reagan said that the equivalent in the United States was the best family measure for which he and his Administration had been responsible, and George W. Bush asked Republican senators and congressmen not to punish the poor by refusing to raise earned income tax credit. This, however, is a Conservative party so far to the right that the only policy on family prosperity that it is prepared to advance is a policy to abolish the working families tax credit, and the children's tax credit now also appears to be at risk.

Mr. Gardiner: Under the children's tax credit, would not the benefit received by a family with one child increase from its 1997 level of £11.50 to £24.50? Is that not what would happen under this Government come next April?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the case of millions of families, support for the first child, which was just over £11 when we came to power, could be as high as £24.50—even higher if one of our Budget proposals, which is out for consultation, is accepted. That represents a doubling of support for the first child of

millions of families over the time in which we have been in office. It is more than we promised in our manifesto. It means that a million children can be taken out of poverty; it also means that every family in the country, rich or poor, has benefited from our policy of giving more support to families bringing up very young children.
Those are the issues on which we hope to make progress over the next year. What would the Conservatives have done? We would have been presented with the New Deal (Abolition) Bill, and the Working Families Tax Credit (Abolition) Bill. We might have been presented with the Children's Tax Credit (Abolition) Bill. As the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we would certainly have been presented with the Winter Allowance (Abolition) Bill. We would even have been presented with the Christmas Bonus (Abolition) Bill.
What Christmas spirit would have been involved in telling pensioners that they would lose the Christmas bonus for which, in fact, a Conservative Government legislated in 1972? It is clear that the Conservatives have abandoned the Christmas spirit, and that there are no wise men around in their party.
What about the free colour television licences from which 3 million pensioners currently benefit? The shadow Chancellor says—I think I quote him correctly—that it is a gimmick that patronises pensioners. He says, "We do not think we should patronise pensioners. We are going to get rid of the free licence, instead of patronising them by saying that we will hand out little dribs and drabs."

Mr. Portillo: No, we are not.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman confirming that the Conservatives would not get rid of the free licence? [Interruption.] It appears that he is not.
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has a big interest in the matter. I recall that in 1997 he was a signatory to a Bill to abolish the exemption from payment for licences. He and his colleagues did not say that it was patronising or a gimmick, however. The present shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, then a Back Bencher, said:
For those over 75, the television is a particularly important part of life.
He proposed to
exempt all those aged 75 and over from having to pay anything at all.
The hon. Gentleman even went to his constituency newspaper, the West Sussex Gazette, which featured the headline "MP's crusade to abolish TV licences for the over-75s". He said that his Bill would correct the unfairness, and that he had met large numbers of pensioners aged 75 and over for whom the television licence was a substantial burden and worry. He went on to say that for the over-75s, the television licence was the main conduit to communication, information and entertainment. He thought that the top priority should be a simple and tangible measure that was directed and cost-effective and which brought help to 85 per cent. of the retired population who were in real need.
Who sponsored the Bill in the House of Commons? It was the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is in charge of the election manifesto


that will commit the Conservative party to abolishing the free television licence; the senior vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins); the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who was an adviser to the previous Chancellor and is part of the Opposition's Treasury committee; one of the Opposition's health spokesmen, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman); one of their education spokesmen, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady); and another vice-chairman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior).
There were so many on the bandwagon that hardly any room was left for the band. However, having gone one way, the bandwagon is now going in the opposite direction. We said that we could not trust the Conservative party on tax, but we cannot even trust it on television licences.
A silence has descended on the Opposition Benches. To be fair to the shadow Chancellor, he could not sponsor the Bill because he was not in the House at the time.

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor does himself no favours by promoting those distortions. He is not enhancing his credibility and does no credit to politics. He knows perfectly well that the Conservative party proposes to allow retired people to have a much higher weekly income. Single pensioners under the age of 75 would receive an extra £9.50 a week, and the payment for a couple over the age of 75 would increase to £16.10 a week. That would all be exempted from tax. [Interruption.] Yes, it would. We would adjust the tax rates and the minimum income guarantee so that pensioners lose nothing. Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer afraid of honest debate? Why must he distort everything?
I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to make it clear that we do not propose to abolish the working families tax credit. We propose to pay it to the parent who has care. That is a much more socially responsible policy, which should commend itself to the Labour party. By the way, in the process, we shall also save business £100 million a year in administration costs.

Mr. Brown: That is the abolition of the working families tax credit. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to replace it with the old family credit, with its high marginal tax rates, its low take-up and all the work incentive problems that arose from it. The working families tax credit takes an additional 1 million people out of poverty, which in turn removes 1.2 million children from poverty. I would welcome the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would keep the working families tax credit, but he is actually saying—he should make this clear to the House—that he would abolish it and replace it with family credit, which is the old system that was paid direct to the mother and not through the employer.

Mr. Portillo: Our proposal is that the working families tax credit should be paid to the parent who has care. It is a sensible policy.

Mr. Brown: The working families tax credit is what it is because it is paid through the pay packet. That is

exactly what it was designed to do and we have made it possible for many people to return to work. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he would keep the working families tax credit, that is one thing and, as I said, I would welcome it, but he is actually saying that he would replace it by returning to the old family credit system.
Many people are £50 a week better off under the working families tax credit because we have devised a system that has a minimum income guarantee, which at the moment is £214 a week. People do not have to pay tax until they receive £260. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to guarantee that the working families tax credit will remain in existence and be paid through the wage packet at the rates that we are outlining, that is one thing, but he seems to be describing its abolition and replacement by family credit.

Mr. Portillo: rose—

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman must answer a straight question. Would he keep the working families tax credit in the same form in which it was designed: that is, paid through the wage packet? Will he also answer a question about pensions? If he is to guarantee that people would not have to pay tax on the addition that he proposes on the basic pension, how much would that cost?

Mr. Portillo: The working families tax credit has been badly designed by the Chancellor. Many children do not get the money because it goes to the parent in work, who is not necessarily the parent with care. I believe that that is a bad system, and we will reform it. Furthermore, it is a bad system because it costs business £100 million, and business should not be the provider of benefits on the Government's behalf.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on the factual point, and I hope that when he gets the information he will withdraw his allegation about what has happened as a result of the creation of the working families tax credit. As for burdens on business, perhaps he will explain his proposal to privatise the industrial injuries benefit without proper compensation having been announced for businesses. He says that he wants to take a burden off business, but then he wants to put one on through the privatisation of the industrial injuries benefit.
The right hon. Gentleman has still not answered my question. If his pensions proposal is serious, and he guarantees that no pensioner would have to pay any tax on the additional money that he proposes to give, the Inland Revenue would have to make complex arrangements and that would cost a substantial sum. He should tell us what that sum is likely to be.
As we go through the Conservative party's proposals, the amount of money available is eroded from the £16 billion. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even find the £5 billion that he is talking about. We know that that money is not available for single parents. We have calculated that he would have to put every single parent with a child over 11 back to work, otherwise he could not secure the savings that he talks about.
The Conservative party will have to go back to the drawing board one day. Its proposals are vindictive towards single parents, and assume that a newly widowed mother would have to go back to work, and that mothers


with sick children would be forced into work. The only way in which the Conservatives could get that level of benefit savings would be by putting every mother with a child over 11 back to work. They know perfectly well what mood they want to create in the country on that issue, and they have not calculated their figures.

Mr. Portillo: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way only if the shadow Chancellor is prepared to answer some questions. He should tell us, as I have asked him to do, the tax cost of exempting pensioners. He says that he would exempt pensioners from taxation on the additional pension rights that he proposes to give presumably to both the richest and the poorest pensioners—any pensioner who pays tax. He must have a costing for that, so perhaps he will give it to the House now, because the longer this goes on, the clearer it is that the shadow Treasury Front-Bench team has not thought out its ideas or its detailed proposals.

Mr. Portillo: The cost of paying the benefit to single parents whose children are over 11 would be £725 million, and we have said that after three years we would be able to save £500 million. So the proposal is not based on everyone going to work, as the Chancellor says. It is based on a realistic assessment of what can be achieved after three years. It is a proper policy, because social research shows that children above the age of 11 and teenagers are much more likely to look for and find work if they come from a household in which the parent has looked for work and has hopefully found it.
We shall set out all our tax proposals in the new year, and we shall give the Government a good run for their money. Those tax proposals will be highly attractive to groups in society who have been vindictively punished by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is revealing more and more as we go on. He says that he could save £500 million from single parents, and that the cost of benefits for single parents would be £725 million. He referred to his proposal on the working families tax credit. Either that tax credit will not exist under the Conservatives, or that money will have to be paid to single parents who are in work. His failure to include any costing for the working families tax credit shows that either he intends to abolish it completely—I do not think he would abolish it completely, because he proposes to replace it with family credit, which also has a cost—or he refuses to count it as a cost. The truth is that the average benefit saving from getting a single parent back to work is about £60 a week—just over £3,000 a year. If that is divided by £500 million, it would need more than 150,000 single parents with children over 11 to recoup that money in the year about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking. In other words, he is assuming, through his own mistakes, that every single parent will be forced back into work. He is assuming that mothers with sick children and even the 4,000 widows will be forced back to work, perhaps within only a few weeks of their husband's death.
At some time, the Conservatives will have to face up to the fact that, if they take single parents off benefit and get them into work and if they keep a form of family

credit, which they say they would, they will have to pay out some money for that. Therefore, the saving would not come just by writing off the benefit cost. They would have to provide the tax credits or the family credit. The right hon. Gentleman is now giving us the impression that he has not even bothered to cost that in his figures.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that I cannot give way any more.
The Conservatives have revealed today that they cannot tell us their fiscal rule. They cannot tell us—it was quite a simple question for previous Conservative Administrations—whether they believe in a balanced budget. I have put that straightforward and simple question to the shadow Chancellor. It was answered by previous Administrations, but he has refused to answer. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he intends to abolish the working families tax credit and replace it with family credit. He has not properly costed the single parents savings and he has not costed the new deal savings, which were announced a few days ago. He has not costed properly the savings from privatising industrial injuries benefit, and, as Lord Skidelsky said in the other place, he has made huge assumptions about savings that can come from cutting bureaucracy here and there and from cutting fraud, which we are already doing far more successfully than he ever did when he was Secretary of State for Employment.
Our agenda is to entrench stability in the economy by pursuing a policy of low inflation and working with strong and disciplined fiscal rules. Our policy is to move this country towards full employment by building on the 28 million people who are now in jobs—the highest figure the country has ever achieved. We aim to build on the working families tax credit with the children's tax credit and to provide far more generous child benefit than we ever saw under the previous Government. We aim to build family prosperity, not just for some, but for all. Our policy is to build the investment that is necessary for our public services. We have had no answer today from the Conservative party about whether it would fund the necessary investment for transport and other services.
The shadow Chancellor has said that he wants a mixed economy in health care. Let us fight out this issue. We do not know about the charges. He says that he is not talking about general practitioners, but whether it is hospitals or tax relief for private medical insurance—money that could go to the health service—or whether it is the shadow Chief Secretary's plan, with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, for credits to be paid to people who use private care, let the Conservatives tell us the truth about their privatisation plans.
The Conservatives must face up to the central fact that they brought this country boom and bust in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That happened because they did not work to disciplined fiscal rules, and they have none. The Tory Government refused to invest in the supply side of the economy—education and infrastructure—which is essential to sustain growth. They did not have monetary discipline and they are now reluctant and unclear converts to the independence of the Bank of England. On the basis of one year's surplus they promised tax cuts for every year, which they knew they could not afford.
All those mistakes are being made again. The Conservative party has a black hole in its public spending figures. However, it has an even bigger problem because it was the party of boom and bust and it still is. It has no fiscal rules, no investment in the supply side of the economy and no monetary discipline. It will make the mistake of promising tax cuts every year on the basis of a surplus in one year. The Conservatives are making the same mistakes from which they should have learned. The shadow Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when many of those mistakes were being made and he is now the shadow Chancellor presiding over a Treasury team that is repeating them. He has not been able to answer any of my questions. The Conservative party is not fit for government and it has not even begun to learn how to be an Opposition. The country will pass its verdict in due course.

Mr. John Major: If I had any doubts about whether this was the last Queen's Speech debate in which I would have the privilege of speaking before leaving the House at the next election, the Chancellor has removed them over the past 40 minutes or so. The Government have been generous in allowing six days to debate a Gracious Speech with so little in it. I now know that that was because they wanted to debate the Opposition's alleged programme rather than their own policies. As we come to the end of this Parliament, the Queen's Speech, which we should have been debating, is more of a shop window than a programme for action. It contains a small number of measures, most of which every hon. Member knows will not be enacted in this Parliament.
The Government took office with a large majority and an enormous amount of public goodwill. They faced a depleted Opposition who had suffered a painful election defeat. Given all that, it is extraordinary how little of real worth has been achieved in those remarkable circumstances. In addition to all that—I will return to this later—the Chancellor inherited an economy that was in better shape than that inherited by any incoming Chancellor for a long time. In similar, although not identical, circumstances, between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Attlee did so much more with his majority. We may not agree with what he did, but he made remarkable changes, out of any comparison with what has been achieved in this Parliament. The same can be said of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher between 1979 and 1983 and perhaps even more so between 1983 and 1987. Although I voted positively against the Labour Government with great will, even I could see that there were attractive aspects to some of what they said they would do. They were going to think the unthinkable, but they have scarcely thought at all. The Minister who was going to think the unthinkable was soon out-thought and out of Government as well.
The Government's fondest boast is their management of the economy. With all the regularity of a man who has convinced himself and is seeking to convince everyone else, the Chancellor tells us that he has avoided boom and bust—and thus far he has—and has remained faithful to prudence. Prudence has become famous. In fact, in his last Budget he rather strayed from prudence and I suspect that, far from straying, he will be downright unfaithful to prudence when he delivers his new Budget and tells us of

his plans to bribe the electorate with their own money. Poor old prudence has served her time adequately but is about to be ditched in favour of a hussy who is willing to distribute her assets in every conceivable direction.
To preserve the tattered reputation of prudence, and perhaps the Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman has hinted at targeting tax cuts. We will have none of the crudeness of giving everybody their money back. He has said that they will be targeted, and I bet they will. They will be targeted on every voter who might be persuaded to put the Chancellor back into the Exchequer. As the Chancellor is keen to put matters on the record, let it be recorded that even he smiled at the prospect of what he might do.
I find it ironic, although perhaps not amusing, that if we believe what is said, the economy is to be at the centre of the Government's re-election campaign. That is disingenuous at best and downright dishonest at worst. Despite the earlier difficulties to which he alludes so frequently, the Chancellor knows that in 1997, he inherited a growing economy with low inflation, falling unemployment and a rapidly declining fiscal deficit.
The Government can claim accurately that, thus far, they have not yet wrecked that economy, although cause and effect in economics is often lengthy and the substantial tax increases that the Chancellor has levied will threaten our competitiveness, as will the Government's agreement to some of the anti-competitive measures from the European Union and their tendency to advocate regulation. It is difficult to get rid of regulation. I do not complain about some aspects of regulation. I acknowledge that we had great difficulty in getting rid of it, too.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.
The Chancellor, of course, knows all that. He does not openly admit it, but he is not foolish; he knows all that. That is why he talks regularly—he talked about it again today—of his economic achievements: so as to fix in the public mind the fact that he, and he alone, may be responsible for the benign economic circumstances that currently exist. That is why boom and bust in the 1980s—he almost invariably says the 1980s, although seeing me sitting here he added the early part of the 1990s—features so much in his vocabulary. However, even the Chancellor at his most slippery, and that—I mean it as a compliment, for he is a politician—is very slippery indeed, knows that the economy has been benign and growing for eight years, which is an almost unprecedented post-war record. When in opposition, he and his colleagues opposed many of the measures that brought that about. He now advocates many of those measures as prudent for the present and the future.
Perhaps I might remind the Chancellor, as it seems to have slipped his and the Prime Minister's mind, that it was the Conservative party that created the economy that he inherited in 1997. Masters of spin he and his colleagues


may be, but attempting to air brush out of history economic growth from the early 1990s onwards is pushing their talent for obfuscation just a touch too far.

Liz Blackman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: Let me make a little progress. I shall then give way to the hon. Lady.
I remind the Chancellor of where we were on 1 May 1997, as opposed to the fiction of where we were. Interest rates were at 6 per cent. GDP growth was at 3.5 per cent. Inflation was at 2.6 per cent. and unemployment was on a very sharp downward track. Thank goodness it has remained on that downward track since then. The Chancellor can take some credit for that. Over the first 18 months, the impact of what had been done before kept it on a downward track. In the past 18 months, he can take some personal credit for that.
The tax burden in 1997—we heard about the 22 Tory tax rises time and again—was only marginally above that of 1990 and substantially below that which applies now. I shall not bandy figures about. There are various ways in which one can calculate them, but, whichever way one calculates them, the tax increases between 1997 and today are larger in total than the tax increases between 1990 and 1997. The talk of 22 tax increases was entirely bogus, for it utterly neglected the parallel tax reductions, which made a substantial difference to the net position.
Perhaps the Leader of the House, who will wind up the six-day debate, will tell us—I do not know the figure and I have not yet managed to obtain it—how many tax rises have been introduced since 1997. If she is in a frank mood, and I hope that she is—I greatly admire her leadership; she is a fine Leader of the House—perhaps she can add to her reputation by telling us how many of the tax increases since 1997 were announced by the Chancellor in the House in the Budget, as opposed to being slipped out in a post-Budget press release from the Treasury. I would thank her for that and welcome it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Major: I think that the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) was first.

Liz Blackman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, on record to the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Governor of the Bank of England clearly stated that interest rates should have risen well before the Government came into office in 1997, but for political reasons that did not happen? Does he recall that, in 1998, in the teeth of the Asian crisis, the Opposition forecast recession? It was the good management of the Government that steered the economy on a fair course.

Mr. Major: I have a feeling that the state of the world economy, notwithstanding the enormously good activities at Millbank, stretches a little further than the direct responsibilities of the Chancellor. I may be mistaken about that. It may be that Mr. Greenspan has very little to do with the American economy, that the American economy has very little to do with us and that the

European economy does not affect us in the slightest, but I ask the hon. Lady to consider that it is just possible that world events interfere even with the activities of a Chancellor who inherits a benign economy.
I come a little closer to the tax point. I have said before and I repeat: we did put up taxes. We put up taxes in a recession to help to protect individuals and our national accounts from the economic downturn. I seem to recall that, at the time, the Chancellor and his colleagues demanded that the then Government did precisely that to protect people who were vulnerable in their constituencies. It was right. It was very painful. Conservative Governments do not like to put up taxes. They do not wish to. They did not intend to, but the social requirement of protecting people in that recession was necessary.
That is in some contrast to what has happened since the 1997 election. Since then, the Government, first, have increased taxes by more than we did and, secondly, have increased them in a benign economic climate rather than in a recession. That is a sharply different proposition.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with his usual eloquence and charm. He referred earlier to the trend in unemployment continuing on a downward path. There was another trend: the trend in projected taxation, which his Chancellor had announced and was printed in the Red Book. That showed taxation continuing to rise after the general election as a proportion of GDP—it was slightly above the present Government's projection—to close the very deficit that the Government have closed in that way.

Mr. Major: I give the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer that the Chancellor would give him. If I had said to the Chancellor that the Red Book projections show taxation rising in future, he would have said, "These are stylised projections based on unchanged policies." Of course, they change with each successive Budget. That is why I referred to the tax burden as it is now, not as it is projected by the Chancellor in future. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his kind words and for letting me make that particular point.
Is there scope for tax reductions now? The Chancellor clearly thinks not and had much pre-election fun rehearsing his hustings speeches in village halls throughout the country, but there is clearly scope for tax reduction to reverse the Chancellor's raiding of the net personal incomes of millions over the past three years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, is searching for savings throughout Whitehall. Good luck to him. It is an extremely good thing for him to look for, but, although it is wise always to see where prudent savings could be made, he could justify his proposed tax cuts simply by saying that he is reversing just a part of the sheer scale of the economically damaging increases that the Chancellor has piled upon the electorate in the past three years.
Some time ago, I heard the Prime Minister—not my favourite programme, Members can understand, but I listen to him from time to time—praising our low-tax economy. Unfortunately, I must have missed the bit where he praised his predecessors for creating it, and the bit where he repented his Government's smash-and-grab raids on people's pockets. The plain truth is that the


Chancellor, a very agreeable man, has had his hands in the public's pockets more often than the public have had their hands in their own pockets.
In 1997, taxes in the UK broadly, because one can calculate it in different ways, were 6 per cent. below those of our main European competitors. That gap, important for our competitiveness, has shrunk to 2 per cent. and may shrink further because Germany, France and Italy are all embarking on programmes to cut their taxes.
That is potentially important for our competitiveness, our inward investment and for our jobs, on a day when, sadly, many jobs have been lost at Luton. Tax cutting is not simply a matter of putting more money into the pockets of those who have some money already. In my judgment, and I dare say that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea, the weight of tax reductions should be at the lower end of the scale.
It is not greed that demands tax. To a certain extent there is an economic justification for tax reductions, quite apart from the fact that we are not giving people something, but simply taking less of their money away from them.
The Chancellor's move over the past three years from fiscal Scrooge to fiscal Micawber is by no means his only policy change. Once upon a time, as I recall, he was proud to be represented as being in favour of quite early entry to the euro. I understand from his aides, that now, to judge from briefings against the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, he is not in favour. Of course, those briefings could be personal rather than policy—one never knows with the Cabinet—

Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman knows about that.

Mr. Major: Indeed I do, and that is exactly why I say it. However, it is nearly Christmas, so let us make the generous assumption that it is policy that activates the Chancellor and not a wish to undermine his colleagues, which is always an unattractive trait in senior politicians.
The Chancellor now favours delay in entry to the euro. The time is not yet right. One might perhaps characterise his position as wait and see. I think that he is right about that. When they were in opposition, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor roundly condemned that policy, but in government they have warmly embraced it. Indeed, wait and see appears now to have become a rather venerable old gent much loved by nearly all political parties.
The Government wait and see. The Opposition wait and see—albeit for a rather longer time. Entry into the euro rightly provokes great debate. Unfortunately, for many years it has been inadequate debate. Some hon. Members see a new currency as a child of Beelzebub while others regard it as a benign inevitability. It is, in fact, neither. Personally, I disagree with both the "go in now" brigade and the "go in never" brigade. We should measure United Kingdom political and economic interests, which are not yet clear—the Chancellor is right about that—and make a decision only when they are. It could take some time. After the election I shall not be in the House to be told

that I am wrong, but I do not believe that any Government will enter the euro in the next Parliament and in my view nor should they. I would actively oppose premature entry.

Mr. Nigel Beard: What is the difference between the policy that the right hon. Gentleman has just outlined for entry to the euro and the established policy of the present Government?

Mr. Major: The established policy of the present Government is very familiar to me for it was mine long before it was theirs, so it is hardly surprising if I have a certain degree of affection for waiting to see whether it is the right policy before deciding upon it. A more accurate question might have been to invite the Chancellor to explain why, two years after the euro came into being, he still adopts the policy that he criticised so harshly when I sat on the Government Front Bench three years before the euro.

Mr. Miller: He is not listening.

Mr. Major: Of course he is not listening; he does not want to hear this and that is perfectly all right.

Mr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will probably defend the Chancellor, but I do not think that the Chancellor needs defending. He is big enough to look after himself.

Mr. Miller: Just for completeness, so that we know exactly where the right hon. Gentleman stands, is he in favour of a referendum so that the people can decide?

Mr. Major: I actually said, in government, that there should be a referendum on the euro. Once again, the present Government gave that commitment because they inherited it from me. That is my position on a referendum, but if in the next Parliament there is concurrence that there will be no decision to enter, it is painfully evident that there will be no referendum.
The Government are allegedly preparing for entry if—and it is a big if—they judge it to be in our national interest. If that is the case, and if their position is not simply a public relations posture, they must consider some serious questions. However, they have not given us their judgment on those serious questions. I do not know the Chancellor's view on the debate. For example, how does he think that the pound will fare in future alongside the dollar, the euro and the yen? Does he worry about the very large capital outflows from the eurozone to the dollar zone? Why does he think that it is happening? What does he think is happening within the eurozone following the birth of the new currency, albeit too early and certainly in the wrong conditions—not remotely the conditions that were agreed at Maastricht some years ago?
It seems to me, as an observer, that the euro has accelerated structural change in continental Europe. If that is so, we need to consider whether the proposed tax reforms in Germany, accompanied by the proposed pension reforms there and the anticipated balanced budget there in about four years' time if the Germans hit their targets, will affect us and if so how?
We also need to consider the implication—as it is critical to the United Kingdom—of the huge growth of mergers and acquisitions in France especially, but also across Europe. If the Government are leading the debate on the euro, what do they think about all those and 50 other issues that the Chancellor and I and all my right hon. and hon. Friends could easily set out as being crucial for discussion and consideration before any rational judgment should seriously be taken to take us into a single currency?
Some oppose it on principle and others do not. Most people probably wish to know whether it will have a benign or a malign effect on the British economy. We cannot know that without a proper debate on all those issues. I wish that we were having that debate and I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lead it
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is better placed than any other politician to lead that debate, so what does he think? How does the Chancellor think the unification of the continental financial markets will impact on our own financial markets and what will it mean for future policy? Here is another illustration of an issue that is far beyond the often rather superficial arguments for and against the euro and one that we genuinely need to examine and consider before we make a decision. It is all relevant to our national interest. Where is the debate on all this so that we can make a rational judgment?
We have time. As I said earlier, I do not favour entry in the next few years. I do not think that it would be wise and I would not vote for it. In fact, I would oppose entry in the next few years, but we have to consider that the world around us may be changing and we need to look at that changing world and judge what it means for us.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been listening with great interest to what is perhaps his valedictory speech. I congratulate him on his remarks because it is rare indeed to hear from the Opposition a considered discussion of the problem of euro entry. Perhaps he should address his remarks to those on the Opposition Front Bench and to his own party leadership because until we have a rational discussion across the Chamber and the nation that is not dictated by The Sun and the Daily Mail and their venomous anti-Europeanism, we cannot have a discussion at all.

Mr. Major: When I hear the hon. Gentleman praising me, I feel the slide of a knife in my ribs.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it a familiar feeling?

Mr. Major: Of course not. It is not remotely familiar. That is a disgraceful suggestion.
The other point that I would make in response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is that, although I may be terribly old fashioned, I came into the Chamber today believing that the debate was to be about the Government's programme and policies. I did not think that it would be about the Opposition's programme, or about any distorted version of that programme that it may be convenient for the Chancellor to allege might be implemented in certain circumstances.
The Chancellor, rather like Fanlight Fanny, looks at our programme through the wrong end of a telescope, on a very dark night, standing on a stool, and through a clouded window. Anything that the right hon. Gentleman says about our policies we may routinely assume to be the opposite of the reality. There was much evidence of that today, and the right hon. Gentleman is very good at it. He is able to say that which is not so with such conviction that he convinces himself that it is so—but it is not. The Conservative party that I joined—I look forward to campaigning for it in the next general election, in the hope and belief that it will win—bears no relation to the party painted in such lurid colours by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I see that the Chancellor is smiling. He may well smile: he has done a good afternoon's work, and enjoyed himself jolly well. He has not defended his own policies, but has talked about ours instead. He did not get past page 3 of the prepared speech given to him by his advisers. He was also able to use up 49 minutes, which was necessary because not too many Labour Members are waiting to speak later on.
The Chancellor has had a really super afternoon, which he is thoroughly enjoying. He has safely moved on and ditched poor old Prudence, who was useful once but is no longer. We must continue to remind the right hon. Gentleman of Prudence, because she will yet be an embarrassment to him when, in the very near future, he comes to prepare his Budget. Prudence may be the only person in the country who will not be given a tax handout of some sort when the Chancellor addresses the House on Budget day.
I return, briefly and finally, to the question of the euro. My prediction is not shared by many people, but I stand to be judged on it. It seems to be more likely than not that, over the next year, the euro will recover in value against the dollar, the yen and sterling. It is worth noting, in passing, that that will help sustain the price stability that was the objective demanded of the European central bank by the Maastricht treaty. The treaty was often misunderstood, but that provision was absolutely clear.
All such issues, and the conclusions that follow from them, are material to our consideration of whether sterling should one day—although not in the near future—enter the eurozone. In a mature debate on the future of our economy and currency, all those issues would be aired.
I was rather disappointed that the Chancellor should have aired other issues and spoken rather intolerantly about our policies, rather than address an issue that he hopes will go away in the period before and during the next election. I can tell him that it will not go away, as it is of abiding interest to far too many people for that to be possible. However, no mature debate is being held. The current Government have enjoyed a massive majority in the House of Commons for four years and, frankly, it is time that such a debate were held.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that this might be my valedictory speech. He may wish it to be but, unless the election is held very speedily, I promise him that it is not going to be my valediction. However, it is certainly my valedictory contribution to a debate on a Queen's Speech. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall use the latitude that the debate allows to say something about the House of Commons and the way in which it operates these days.
The House of Commons has always had a certain mythology about its past. I have been here for only 20-odd years, but I am in no doubt that the complexion of the House has changed in that time, to the disbenefit of democracy and of the nation at large. It is not good for the House that only a handful of enthusiasts take part even in significant debates, and that it should be so often bypassed when statements come to be made.
Moreover, although all Governments have used guillotines, it is not good for the House when placing them at the necks of innocent pieces of legislation becomes too frequent and callous. It is not in the interests of the House of Commons that we should be able to go in the No Lobby, on a day when we happen to be here, and vote on issues that we do not understand after debates that we did not attend.
None of what I have set out is in the interests of democracy. If we were really interested in re-establishing democracy, there are things that we could do. There are many ways to reform the House of Lords other than the way in which it has been reformed, and they should have been implemented. Standing Committees of both Houses should be used to examine treaties—such as Nice, for example, or the Maastricht treaty of many years ago—both before and after they are negotiated. Standing Committees could also be used to look at the creeping constitutional change that is undermining the House. Those matters are what we need to be looking at.
I shall conclude with a prediction that gives me no pleasure at all but which I fear will be realised. It is that turnout at the next general election will be very sharply down, and that it will be below the level recorded in any general election for a very long time. No hon. Member ought to want that to happen, and it is not something to be proud of. If such matters were in the forefront of the Government's mind and covered in the legislation proposed for the few weeks available before the election is called for late April or early May, perhaps the Queen's Speech would have been better and more relevant than the one that the Chancellor nearly debated this afternoon.

Mr. Nigel Beard: In assessing the economy today, it is useful to consider the history of economic policy in Britain over the past few years.
In his great work on the English constitution, Walter Bagehot observed that civilisations ultimately decline because they fail to understand the institutions that they have created. For the whole of the 20th century and much of the 19th century, industrial economies seemed to be just such institutions, and a lack of understanding of them could indeed endanger the democracies that nurtured them.
John Maynard Keynes was the intellectual critic of the prevailing laissez-faire economics of the early 20th century. His view was that to avoid instability it was essential for central Government to regulate demand. Thus, as the trade cycle carried an economy to recession, Governments should spend to create the demand to counteract it. As the trade cycle moved up to a peak, Governments should restrain demand to avoid overheating the economy and prevent subsequent inflation as too much money chased too few goods.
Reginald Maudling, at the beginning of the 1960s, attempted to create growth in the economy simply by creating more demand. It did not work, but resulted in the

economic crisis that faced the Wilson Government in the 1960s. Likewise—but even more so—in the early 1970s, Anthony Barber thought that by increasing demand he could cause the British economy to grow irrespective of its ability to supply. Supply did not follow but increased oil prices did. As a result, one inflationary pressure reinforced the other to create the appalling inflation of the 1970s. The greatest casualty of this era was Keynesian economics which was presumed—falsely, in my view—to lead automatically to inflation.
As a reaction to this excess came Thatcherism and Reaganomics, which, in essence, were a return to laissez-faire economics. The trouble was that there was a return to the overriding weakness of laissez-faire economics—a propensity to instability.
Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and, immediately, taxation was increased at a time when the economy was moving towards recession. So deep was the recession that resulted that 25 per cent. of UK manufacturing industry disappeared. That was some mistake.
The world economy recovered as oil prices declined, so much so that, in the second half of the 1980s, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, gave generous tax concessions. The inevitable boom in demand happened, which the economy could not satisfy. Inflation occurred, and high interest rates followed from that. The result was that the economy went bust in the early 1990s, as it had in the early 1980s, the early 1970s and the early 1960s—on all those occasions under a Conservative Administration.
The economy going bust was not just an economic abstraction; it meant that many small companies went bust. It meant that there were 3 million unemployed, in contrast to 1 million today. It meant negative equity so families could not afford to move house and were in dire distress because of their finances. It meant interest rates of 15 per cent.—and an average of 10 per cent. over the period of Conservative Government—compared with an average of 6 per cent. during this Government's period in office.
As the 1997 election drew near, an attempt was made to disguise that record with a Government spending spree. It did not work electorally, but the incoming Labour Government were left with a gap of £29 billion in the public finances that had to be made good. Had there not been a period of putting the public accounts right, even at the expense of public services, the International Monetary Fund would have been on the doorstep, and Labour's cherished five-year programme could have been vetoed by the financial markets.
It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that he had the understanding, foresight and tenacity to deal with that complex situation. Indeed, he has done more than that. He has introduced a new philosophy for managing the economy, which avoids the regular boom and bust of Conservative Administrations.
I have heard Opposition Members asking sarcastically whether Labour's claim to have abolished boom and bust means that it has abolished the trade cycle, too. Of course, it does not mean that. What has been stopped is a form of economic management that increased taxation in the trough of the cycle, which deepened recession, and reduced taxes at the top of the cycle, creating a boom.
Conservative economic policy succeeded in magnifying the undulations of the trade cycle into the familiar boom and bust.
The other characteristic of 18 years of Tory economic policy was a reckless neglect of public investment. The result is the rundown appearance of hospitals, the poor maintenance of schools and the total neglect of public transport.
The artificial Treasury impediment on public investment, known as the 	Ryrie rules, has been abolished in favour of new fiscal rules, namely the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule. These rules facilitate public investment while ensuring that interest payments on debt never become the millstone that this Government inherited, at a time when debt interest payments were greater than the whole education budget.
The attention of Departments to the value of capital assets and their maintenance will be focused by the recent introduction of resource accounting. That will ensure that maintenance and depreciation are properly taken into account in determining budgets.
The Opposition have made much of the fact that growth in the economy was forecast, in the July spending review, to be 2.5 per cent. in real terms, but that total Government spending will increase by 3.3 per cent. They therefore say that the spending programme is not sustainable and that they will cut it. However, the July spending review makes it clear that current spending will grow at the same rate as the growth in the economy, and that growth over and above that is capital spending, which will satisfy the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule as it doubles over the next three years.
If the Tory party were to cut the growth in public spending but not cut spending on health or education, as they propose, they would have to cut capital spending that is vital, particularly for the improvement of public transport. Tory policy can only mean continuing dilapidation of public buildings and increasing congestion in our cities, as well as likely cuts in health and education, compared with the Government's programme.
The public sector's record on controlling large capital projects is poor, partly because such projects come along only infrequently for any one part of the public sector. Consequently, experience in design and project management is not built up. Unless that problem is faced, there is a danger that too high a proportion of increased investment will not give value for money. That is a major justification for projects to be undertaken as some form of public-private partnership. The private partner should have expertise derived from experience in similar projects, and so be in a better position to ensure performance and to shoulder the risks of delay and overspending. After all, one cannot shake off the fact that the Jubilee line extension, under different project management arrangements, was £1.5 billion over budget and 18 months late.
In the past, public finance initiative projects tended to be justified because they avoided public borrowing. Under the new fiscal rules, that is no longer necessary. Now, the overwhelming argument for PFI or public-private partnership schemes is that they offer risk reduction in the capital project while leaving subsequent operational control in the public sector.
The Government's management of the economy is a triumph. It brings to an end a century of flawed or uncomprehending macro-economic policy and successfully launches us into a new century with a new political and economic understanding.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman just referred to the Government's triumph. Does he regard it as part of that triumph that the savings ratio has been more than halved since the Government came into office?

Mr. Beard: Few people in the pubs and clubs of Bexleyheath and Crayford speak of the savings ratio. However, there are many who speak of the advantages of the new deal, of the fact that they are in jobs, of the working families tax credit and of the minimum wage.
Our future depends on our mobilising the abilities of a well-educated, highly trained and well-paid work force so that Britain can compete in the world on the basis of creative design and innovative science and technology.
As the Conservatives, driven by pseudo-nationalism and xenophobia, become the Jehovah's Witnesses of British politics, British business becomes increasingly confident about new Labour's vision of Britain's economic future.
The alternative is to compete using low wages and minimal employment conditions, to out-sweat the sweatshops of Asia. That is the Conservative vision, if such a demeaning prospect can be dignified by the word "vision". That is why they originally opposed the minimum wage, minimum holiday entitlements and legislation on fairness at work. That is why our state schools, universities, and research and development facilities were allowed to decline disastrously and why, even now, the Conservatives would abolish the new deal training scheme.
Britain has contributed immensely towards the shape and substance of the modern world through science, technology, art, literature, commerce, administration, law and democracy. Those days are not over. The frontiers of knowledge and understanding are being pushed further and further into new territory, with Britain to the fore. That is where our future lies. Britain has a distinctive culture and a resourceful people of great ingenuity and talent. We need a Government who can bring out the best in every citizen. This Government are doing that, and long may they continue.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate opened with two speeches, the first of which showed clearly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has every intention of remaining Chancellor after the general election, and—perhaps more important—that he has every intention of being leader of his party after that. The second—an attempt to present an alternative policy from the Conservatives—showed that, although the shadow Chancellor may have ruled out publicly that he wants to be leader of the Conservative party, he ruled out rather more clearly today any possibility that he would be the next Chancellor. Indeed, it is all too evident that he does not believe that he will be the next Chancellor; he makes no real effort to make his proposals add up. I shall return to that point.
I have some comments on the state of the economy that faces us. After something of an economic history lesson, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford


(Mr. Beard) suggested that there had been a transformation and that we were set fair for the future. It is always unwise, when considering an economy, to assume that some new vista has been reached—where all will be permanently well because the golden key to economic management has been found.
The Chancellor is doing a good job. Earlier in the debate, he asked what fiscal rules the Liberal Democrats believed that we should follow. The answer is simple: the fiscal rules that we proposed at the previous general election and which the Chancellor is following. There is thus no reason to criticise them. However, within those fiscal rules, plenty of room remains for debate about policy. The rules tell us nothing about levels of tax or of spend, and little about many of the major economic management issues that need to be tackled.

Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I will in a moment; if I develop my point, it may help the hon. Gentleman.
I want to focus on an issue where there is a substantial question mark over the Government's handling of the economy: the imbalance in growth between investment and consumption. That is reflected in the serious difficulties in manufacturing and production industries, where there is growth of less than 1 per cent., while service sector growth is in excess of 3 per cent. If we take out the growth in production of mobile communications, the manufacturing figures are even worse. A further reflection of that is shown by the terrible news at Vauxhall.
At a time of so much difficulty in manufacturing, farming and many other industries, especially those that are export-related, why—in economic debate, in the recent pre-Budget report, in the March Budget and in the comprehensive spending review—has the Chancellor not addressed that imbalance in the economy, and the resulting loss of 250,000 jobs in manufacturing and farming since Labour took office? The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) no longer wants to intervene.
That imbalance in the economy is a serious weakness for the Government. It is something of a surprise under a Labour Government; support for manufacturing and manufacturing export has always been regarded as one of Labour's heartland issues. Had the Labour party gone to the polls at the last general election saying that a Labour Government would pursue policies that would destroy most of the British car industry, it is hard to believe that Labour would have received the same amount of support in those heartland constituencies. We know that there is concern among Labour Back Benchers, because several of them have been brave enough to say so; at least one Labour Front Bencher resigned from office on exactly those issues.
Are there policies that the Government can pursue to tackle the problems in farming, manufacturing and tourism and the decline in household savings—down from 9.6 per cent. in 1997 to only 3 per cent. at present? Business investment growth is down from 7.5 per cent. in 1999 to only 1.75 per cent. this year. Since the launch of the euro, manufacturing investment in this country has fallen by 12 per cent. in real terms. Those issues are real; not only do they have an extremely public impact on the car industry and farming, but they affect many less

high-profile businesses throughout the country. There may be less publicity for those businesses, but there is equal pain for the people who built them and for their employees. People are losing their jobs and businesses are being lost.

Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have some knowledge of his constituency, because my late father-in-law farmed there, so I am well aware of many of the issues relating to remote, small farms that he describes. On manufacturing, however, I think that I may have a little more experience than him. Does he agree that an interesting challenge faces companies such as Vauxhall in my constituency? Output is growing constantly as a result of investment in technology. Whatever happens in the petrochemical industry and in other manufacturers in my constituency, output will grow while less people will be directly employed. What is the Liberal Democrat solution to that?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman forgets that in the past Cornwall was a county where there was heavy engineering and mining. My experience is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency, Imerys, formerly English China Clays, employed between 8,000 and 10,000 people when I was first elected; the number is well under 3,000 at present, and that job loss is occurring in an industry that is producing more than ever before. That company is a classic example of an industry that is seriously concerned about the international competitiveness of UK production. If we consider what is happening in the car industry, in engineering and in the clay industry, we find that they are all suffering. Our country does not invite the same share of international investment as it did in the past. Hon. Members look surprised, but the share has declined. Companies operating in this country face serious decisions as to whether they can continue manufacturing here.
I have held talks with senior management at Vauxhall, Ford and other companies. They all say that the current level of the pound is a serious problem in attracting investment. That problem is the same for small businesses, such as Charlestown Engineering—now Svedela—in my constituency, which cannot obtain investment within the UK. That company manufactures across the globe, but it is not competitive here—despite the fact that production at its manufacturing centre in my constituency is of the highest quality in the whole group. However, each time that an investment decision is taken, that centre does not win.
Shortly, there may be similar investment decisions on the Nissan Micra. Honda has already taken a decision. The most price competitive sectors are those that are being most clearly hit. Luxury car production is hanging on at Jaguar—although it nearly went to America. However, each of those manufacturers took a decision not to invest in the UK at the most competitive end of the market.
Two issues drive that matter and the Government have failed to tackle them: first, interest rates; and secondly, the linked factor of the exchange rate and the lack of a clear Government policy on the euro. Nobody argues that we should join the euro at present—Liberal Democrats do not argue that, contrary to the caricature that is sometimes presented. Under current exchange rates that would be the worst possible decision.
However, there is a difference between our strategy and that of the Government: we are prepared to work towards the conditions of entry. The Government have laid out conditions, with which we agree; but they will not pronounce on the extra condition of an effective and competitive exchange rate, even though that is surely the key condition that must be met before anyone could realistically contemplate euro entry.
One wonders what is really happening behind the scenes, but as the Government will not tell us that in any parliamentary answers we shall have to take their official position. That is, in effect, that no action will be taken until the conditions are met. The Government will wait—looking up at the sky—and if at some point the Chancellor believes that a message has come from the heavens that the conditions are met, they will plump for the euro. However, they will not be proactive in achieving a competitive exchange rate or in obtaining any of the other conditions that they set.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman develops an interesting argument. As I understand it, he says that he would not contemplate joining the euro under the present exchange rate; that is proposition one. Proposition two is that the Government should be working much harder to create circumstances whereby Britain could join the euro. That means that the hon. Gentleman must have in his mind a target exchange rate, at which that would become a realistic policy. Will he tell the House what that target is?

Mr. Taylor: I shall be glad to, and if the right hon. Gentleman is interested, I can send him the document produced with the help of a commission of very senior economists that we assembled; it sets out what we believe the position is in relation to the Government's tests, how they can work towards them, and the other conditions that will have to be met to enter the euro.

Mr. Dorrell: Answer the question.

Mr. Taylor: I shall answer the question. The document also sets out the exchange rate itself. We sought advice from experts, and I believe that those in government should do the same. In the nature of things, the position two years down the track may be a little different, but the experts suggested to us a range of 1.25 to 1.45 euros to the pound. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman probably does not find it easy to translate what that means, but we are talking about a range between DM2.44 to DM2.83— which, incidentally, is broadly the same conclusion around which all the academic studies on the subject have argued. It also agrees with the conclusion of the IKEA study of comparative pricing carried out by Barclays and published in November.
IKEA prices give us a good way of testing comparative pricing, because IKEA sells exactly the same products in every country, and the study showed clearly that within the eurozone, people can buy the same goods for about 20 per cent. less. The range of prices between one euro-country and another was very narrow, which is exactly what one would expect would be the benefit of

being within a single currency. We believe that we could not join unless the exchange rate was broadly in the range that we have been advised, and that I have suggested.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has developed the IKEA test, and there are many previous versions of that, such as the Mars bar test and the McDonald's test. We have all seen those purchasing power parity tests. However, in the run-up to the general election the Liberal Democrats will now have to campaign all over the country arguing the case for a 20 per cent. devaluation of sterling.

Mr. Taylor: I have set out a range for the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall not be tied to any specific figure. That range is what we were advised, and it also matches all the other advice. If the right hon. Gentleman represents farmers, or manufacturing companies, he should realise that much of the pain that they are suffering results from the current overvaluation of sterling.
The Conservatives cannot talk about all that, because they have to maintain the fiction that all is well outside the euro—and the Government cannot talk about those issues either, nor will they give any indication of where they believe we stand on their tests or how they seek to achieve results, because they are not prepared to take on the argument about the euro.
I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) conduct an intelligent debate on the subject—and I believe that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and I are also having a reasonable debate about it. However, we hear absolute rubbish from Conservatives who seek to pretend that they never wish to join the euro, and would save the pound, although their policy is merely to postpone a decision. The Government are frightened, which probably means that they might as well rule out entry for the next Parliament, because it is inconceivable that they could win the argument, hold a referendum and win it, unless they get on with arguing for it now.
The result of that false debate is the loss of a quarter of a million jobs, the loss of international market share since the euro was launched, and the loss of our share of international investment, which has been declining since the euro was launched. The euro economies are also growing faster than ours, and consumers throughout Europe are paying lower prices than we are. Rip-off Britain is the flip side of the Save the Pound campaign. People are paying an average of £580 a year more on their mortgages than they would if our interest rates were similar to those in the rest of Europe.
This debate urgently needs to be conducted. There are arguments for and against, but the rubbish that we hear, and the Government's avoidance of the debate, lead directly to the economic problems that we suffer—problems that the Chancellor dare not and will not mention.

Mr. Richard Livsey: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I shall give way to my hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Livsey: Will my hon. Friend also take into account the fact that many component manufacturers have gone


abroad? I lost 1,000 jobs in my constituency, and they went to Poland, where wages were one fifth of the level in south Wales. Because of overproduction of cars, the margins have been cut, and because of the euro situation firms are looking for cheaper production. I suggest that that is the cause of the problems in Vauxhall and many other companies, which are trying to overcome the problem by compensating in different ways.

Mr. Taylor: There is a series of issues, but let us remember that Poland, like many other countries, is a candidate for membership of the European Union. The problems will grow if Britain is not prepared to be a full player in the European Union, to influence the decisions and to take a leading role. Conservative policies would deliver none of that.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I now turn to—

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I did say that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, because he has whetted my appetite to pursue another point. The governing council of the European central bank comprises three Germans, two Dutchmen, two Finns, two Frenchmen, two Italians, two Spaniards, a Belgian, an Irishman, a Luxembourger and a Portuguese, and article 108 of the treaty of Amsterdam specifically prohibits national parliaments from seeking to influence the decision-making bodies of the ECB or the national central banks in the performance of their tasks. Given that, can the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how he feels able to reconcile the operation of the single currency with democratic accountability to the British people?

Mr. Taylor: One thing is sure about the European currency: there will be no accountability to the British people while we remain outside it, but it will have a huge influence on them while 60 per cent. of our manufactured exports go into the eurozone. We must simply remember how important it is to us. The hon. Gentleman has a respectable position: he would never join the euro and he never will. Unfortunately for him, those on his Front Bench believe that they might join, but not for four or five years.
Tax and spending were the main issues debated between the parties, and the debate allowed a series of mispropositions to be peddled through the House. Those mispropositions are peddled through the House so often that I suspect that most hon. Members believe them. It is time to give the lie to them.
The Government have followed a policy of bust and boom in public services. In the early years, they followed Conservative spending plans that meant cuts in health and education, and real-terms cuts in the share of national wealth that went to pensions and pensioners. That bust has now been followed by a boom designed to win the general election. Harold Macmillan once enunciated the

principle that if one stands on people's heads long enough, they will be pleased when one gets off. That is precisely the position that the Chancellor has followed on spending.

Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I will in a moment. The cuts are now described as the starting point for the Labour Government, as though it were not the Labour Government who put them through. They cut expenditure at first and now they are putting it up—and they expect people to be grateful. In the lifetime of this Parliament, less of the national cake has been spent on all the public services—education, health and pensioners—than was spent by the previous Conservative Government.
Incidentally, there is something that I should put right. So far as I can see, the Chancellor gave misleading figures to the House in his pre-Budget report. According to the Library, even if we take not only the basic state pension but the whole package for pensioners, the Government have still managed to spend less of GDP on pensioners in this Parliament than was spent on them in the previous Parliament.
The election tactic is to cut first and spend later, which is the opposite of what Labour used to do—but it is no better, because it is dishonest. Hospitals are in crisis, schools have lost teachers, class sizes have risen in secondary schools and pensioners have received a 75p increase—and now, in his role as chairman of Labour's general election campaign, the Chancellor comes along pretending to be Miss Bountiful.
The problem that that raises for those on the Conservative Front Bench is simple. We shall not include social security, so we shall ignore the fact that unemployment has gone down, which is a justification that Labour sometimes gives for the figures. Even on that basis, the total managed expenditure is now lower than it was under the Conservatives. Tax of course is higher, but that is because it has replaced a deficit.
Taking the facts together, it is clear that the Labour Government are spending less of the national cake than the Conservatives did when they were in power. In fact, they are spending even less than the Conservatives planned to spend. Rather inelegantly, the former Prime Minister tried to get himself out of a hole by saying that the previous Government's announcement before the general election that they would increase tax was only a stylistic point. If that is so, perhaps his style was as bad as some of his colleagues thought, because the announcement certainly helped them to lose the general election.

Mr. Beard: Liberal Democrat spokesmen have told us many times that, in the hypothetical event of their taking office, they would not have tried to get rid of the £29 billion deficit left by the previous Government, although such an attempt should have been a given. They would have compounded that decision by spending ever more on services. It is guaranteed that, within 18 months of their taking office, there would have been a financial crisis on the foreign exchange markets, and the whole show would have closed down, as we have seen before. How does the hon. Gentleman say that he would have


escaped, like Houdini, from such a situation? Some type of austerity was necessary initially to put right the public finances.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's question is easy to answer. First, the Government have followed the same fiscal rules that we proposed—and I do not knock them for that. Secondly, we—unlike the Labour party—proposed independence for the Bank of England. We can claim some credit for that proposal. Therefore, we would have followed the same process of building up the economy.
There is, however, one fundamental difference between the two parties' approach. We would have been able to invest more at the start of the Parliament—not by ruining the economy or spending money that was not there, but by making small, costed tax increases to guarantee the health, education and other spending increases that we outlined. Those changes would have been made at the start of the Parliament and formed a baseline for subsequent economic development. It is not difficult to understand that point. Our approach would have led to precisely the same balanced position that the Government have achieved, because we would have balanced spending and taxes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I do not want to impede any of my hon. Friends from intervening, but I think that someone should just remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues opposed the windfall tax. So, all this talk about everything that they would have done and all the resources available to a Labour Government being available to them is just so much nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: The right hon. Lady is wrong. We did not support the windfall tax, but we set out our spending proposals with our tax proposals, making it clear that, in the early years of this Parliament, we would have been able to spend more than the Government did. Additionally, subsequently, our proposals would have enabled a higher expenditure baseline. Consequently, our tax take would have been a little higher during this Parliament—[Interruption.] I do not deny that the tax take would have been higher than it has been under Labour.

Mr. Beard: rose—

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should sit down, because I am not going to take another intervention now. He has asked a question and he will have an answer.
The result of our policy is that people on above-average incomes would have been paying the penny in income tax, balanced by tax cuts for those who are on low incomes. Those who are on high incomes would have been paying at the 50 per cent. rate, rather than the 40 per cent. rate that they are paying under Labour or the 60 per cent. rate that they paid under Baroness Thatcher. They would have been paying a little more tax. Consequently, we could have made the improvements for which we have argued.
The fact is that the Government, contrary to the Labour manifesto, have cut pensioners' share of the national cake. In the early days, they also cut spending on schools and health. Over this Parliament, they are spending less of the national cake on all those services than Conservative Members did when they were in office.
I return to the nonsense that we heard today from the shadow Chancellor. The fundamental point is that, by proposing those cuts, the shadow Chancellor is proposing to achieve even less than the previous Conservative Government achieved. There are only two ways in which he can implement his proposals. He will have either to cut spending on health, education and pensions below that achieved under his previous Government; to raise taxes, which he says he will not do; or—as we must suspect Conservative Members would do—run up a huge deficit, as they did when they were in office. The truth is that deficits are simply deferred taxation. Conservative Members are saying, "You can have your cake now, but pay for it later." They are proposing mortgaging the future. However, if one continues to mortgage the future, the future becomes unaffordable.
It is no wonder that the shadow Chancellor left the No Turning Back group, as it was Baroness Thatcher who spelled out the Tory philosophy that one cannot spend what one does not have. Now, rather than belonging to the No Turning Back group, the right hon. Gentleman is out there offering cake and not charging for it. He is saying, "You can have something for nothing and tax cuts without service cuts."
Look at the nonsense that Conservative Members are offering as examples. They say that the Government are spending an extra £1.8 billion on bureaucracy, and that there is a surge in bureaucracy under Labour. The cash figure, however, is simply the inflation increases paid to people. The truth is that, in real terms, the cost of bureaucracy has decreased under Labour. What are Conservative Members going to do cut people's pay? Are they going to cut the number of civil servants whom they could not be without when they were in government?
Industrial injuries benefit is another example. Conservative Members say that they want to cut tax on business, but what will they deliver? They are proposing to privatise industrial injuries benefit. Excuse me, but what does that mean, other than that businesses themselves will have to pay benefits that are currently paid for by the state?

Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to answer the question that I was going to ask him. He started by saying that Conservative Members would cut spending on health and education. Now, he is putting his own interpretation on the items that we propose cutting—such as bureaucracy and waste. However, my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has clearly stated our commitment to spending on schools and hospitals.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's figures on so-called waste and bureaucracy are equivalent to the cost of 10 per cent. of all United Kingdom civil servants. I do not believe that Conservative Members could possibly make such a cut. The shadow Chancellor has gone even further, however, by saying that they would not make cuts in certain parts of the bureaucracy, such as the Home Office


and social security, but increase them. Those parts of the bureaucracy account for 35 per cent. of the total spent on it. It seems, therefore, that the rest of the system will have to be cut far more.
Conservative Members' proposals are built on a fundamental error in their thinking. They think that spending has increased, whereas, in real terms, it has decreased. If they cannot understand the difference between nominal and real expenditure, they really do have to go back to school.
The list goes on. On each of the Conservatives' proposed cuts, their figures do not exist, add up or work. However, we do not have to take the Liberal Democrat or Labour view on the issue; we can take the shadow Chancellor's view. The first thing he did when announcing his £8 billion tax cut package was to admit that he does not have £3 billion of the package.
Lord Skidelsky—who was a member of the Conservatives' Front-Bench team, which he left because of a disagreement on foreign policy, not economics—is reported today by The Times as suggesting that £1 billion of the £5 billion that the shadow Chancellor claims to have come up with is "bogus". Moreover, that £1 billion is composed of savings on social security fraud. However, as that is exactly the same sum that they had found before the Government announced that they too were going to cut £1 billion in such fraud, presumably they have found another £1 billion that they had not noticed before. Lord Skidelsky called such cuts
the bottomless source of hypothetical savings to which all Chancellors are driven when they run out of anything else to cut.
The shadow Chancellor had the cheek to say that the Conservatives were going to increase pensions by £9.50. Half of that sum is composed of increases already announced by the Government—so there is no surprise there—and the rest comes from ending the winter fuel bonus, the free television licence, the Christmas bonus and other benefits. Although those benefits are large, combining them and adding them to the basic pension will not make pensioners any better off. Pensioners were not born yesterday. They know that they are not any better off if someone takes a pound from one of their hands and puts it in the other.
The country has a choice about levels of tax and spending. The Government have taken their choices. Liberal Democrat Members have made a different set of proposals which entail asking people on above-average incomes to pay a little more, to fund better education, health pensions. The Conservatives are trying to sell a bogus policy, claiming that taxes can be cut without a corresponding cut in services. It is fatuous and it does not add up. No wonder that every time the shadow Chancellor relaunches himself, he has to withdraw the policy that he announced the previous time.

Mr. Adrian Bailey: I make my maiden speech, conscious of the trust and responsibility placed in me by the electors of West Bromwich, West in the recent by-election.
All elections have their memorable moments. My favourite from that by-election was in Wednesbury two days before polling. The pedestrian precinct was the scene of hard campaigning by the Conservative and Labour parties. In one corner was the shadow Chancellor,

surrounded by a few party faithful and an enormous number of blue and white balloons; in the other were myself and Ross Kemp, the former "Eastenders" star, surrounding by a huge throng, mainly clamouring women who wanted autographs.
The scene was far more familiar to Mr. Kemp than to me. However, I dutifully passed on the papers for Mr. Kemp to sign, until one woman took from her shopping bag a certain item of ladies underwear that she insisted on Mr. Kemp signing. Totally unfazed, he did so and handed the item over. As he did so, a television reporter thrust a microphone in the woman's face and asked, "Does this make you any more likely to vote Labour in the by-election?" She looked him in the face and said, "Yes." I wondered at that point what hope the Tories had, when their shadow Chancellor was outfaced by a combination of a soap star and an item of ladies underwear.
I follow in the distinguished footsteps of the previous Speaker of the House, Betty Boothroyd. Much has already been said in the House about Betty in tribute to her for her performance as Speaker for so many years. My own perspective of Betty is as one of her constituents for many years. I can vouch for the love, trust and respect for her in the constituency—not just for the way in which she put West Bromwich, West on the map, but for the fact that she held her surgeries, despite her onerous duties in the House, and was always available for constituents who had problems.
West Bromwich, West lies in the heart of the black country. It consists of a number of small industrial towns, principally Oldbury, Tipton and Wednesbury. All those towns have a strong sense of community and a fierce civic pride. In my constituency were the forges and foundries when Britain was the workshop of the world.
Black country people have a reputation for being plain spoken, hard working and tough. They also have fierce footballing loyalties. That presents a difficulty for me, because the geographical spread of the constituency means that one section is passionate about that erstwhile footballing giant, West Bromwich Albion, and another is equally passionate about another former footballing giant, Wolverhampton Wanderers. As a representative of the entire area, I give my support even-handedly to both, but I retain my passionate loyalty for my boyhood club, the humble Cheltenham Town. Happily, that seems to upset nobody in the constituency.
Over the past 50 years, the original population has been joined by people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. They have brought with them their distinctive work ethic and have enriched our local culture with their cultures and traditions.
The local economy is still heavily manufacturing based. About 40 per cent. of jobs are in manufacturing—20 years ago, the figure was much higher. Then we had the 1980s and the early 1990s. Monetarism and the prevailing Government belief that manufacturing did not matter left the black country devastated. We still have a legacy of high unemployment, derelict land, deprivation and ill health.
Since 1997, low interest rates, steady economic growth and the new deal for young people have started to turn that around. Unemployment in the constituency has dropped by almost a quarter, and most significantly of all,


youth unemployment by more than 60 per cent. Those are not just statistics; they represent real jobs, real income and real hope for a generation of young people.
The other great blight on our community is crime and the fear of crime. The huge majority of law-abiding citizens in my constituency demand action against the small number of yobs who disfigure our estates and cause fear totally out of proportion to their numbers. As a resident of the constituency, I share that anger. I made it clear in my campaign that I would fight to clear our streets of such fear. I welcome the Government's commitment to increase police numbers. I want to see those extra police on the streets in my constituency.
I want the police to be given backing in law to take the necessary measures to rid us of yobs. In my former capacity as deputy leader of the local council, I pushed for the use of anti-social behaviour orders. I am pleased to say that we now have nine in the borough and they are working, but they are not enough. I welcome the toolbox of measures for the police to use, as outlined in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that my constituents will welcome powers to ban drinking in public places and the option of curfews, if the local community feels that that is the most appropriate way to deal with the problems. There must be more money for crime deterrence, prevention, closed circuit television, school security and home security, particularly for pensioners. This is the message from the streets of West Bromwich, West: it is time to call time on crime.
So far, I have dwelt on the problems in my constituency, but there is another side. There is the pride and community spirit that has led to a network of tenants, residents and community groups. Those groups have enthusiastically embraced Government regeneration initiatives. The Tipton challenge partnership, which created 800 new jobs, trained 3,000 people for other jobs and built more than 600 new houses, now has the pioneering Neptune health park, which groups a wide range of medical services under one roof. The famous Tipton Harriers athletic club hosts the Tipton sports academy, which can rival any sports facility anywhere in the country.
As someone who has worked for the co-operative movement and is committed to the principles of co-operation and mutuality, I am proud of the role played by such organisations in sustaining services to the local community. In addition to the traditional range of services provided by local co-op societies, we have a food co-operative which provides healthy food to many who would otherwise not be able to access it. We have a housing co-operative that is pioneering new tenant management techniques. I want the Government to promote that form of enterprise to empower local communities.
Local building societies have played an enormous part in local regeneration. The Government must recognise that the loss of mutual organisations to economic predators can potentially deprive us and our deprived communities of some of our most vital allies in the campaign against social exclusion.
However, community spirit is not enough. We need investment in our public services to make lasting progress. The Government's commitment to raising educational standards is working in my constituency. Educational standards are improving. Investment in schools and the literacy and numeracy hours are paying dividends. Our GCSE and standard assessment test results are improving. My constituency cannot cope with the £24 million of potential cuts outlined by the shadow Chancellor.
The announcement in my constituency yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister of funding for the new metrolink across the constituency will be a huge boost for local people. The existing line, which runs from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, has clearly demonstrated that people will switch from cars to public transport when it is available—15 per cent. of people have switched from cars. The new line from Wednesbury to Brierley Hill will liberate many people without cars and will be a huge contribution to environmentally friendly transportation.
Our local industry is diversifying. We still have many of the traditional metal-bashing companies, but we also have the companies that I visited during my campaign, such as FreeCom, which employs more than 100 people to design websites. Another such company is Advanced Electric Logistics, which is a European leader in audiovisual repairs.
A recent survey in February listed West Bromwich, West as the best area outside London to which companies should relocate. I represent a constituency where things are happening. Traditional industry is changing to meet the demands of a high-tech economy. We have a work force who are becoming better educated and trained. We have an improving transport network.
I am proud to have been elected to represent that constituency. The people of West Bromwich, West have shown a great resilience in the face of past adversities. They have shown a will to work together to overcome them. I welcome this opportunity to work in the House with the people and the Government to rid our streets of crime, create new jobs and give my constituents the quality of life that they deserve.

Orders of the Day — DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from the previous day.
On the motion "Fisheries: Total Allowable Catches and Quotas 2001", the Ayes were 437 and the Noes 86, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Christmas (Adjournment)", the Ayes were 478 and the Noes 8, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Sittings of the House", the Ayes were 478 and the Noes were 5, so the motion was agreed to.
On the motion "Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 470 and the Noes were 13, so the motion was agreed to.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Orders of the Day — The Economy

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on his speech. I particularly enjoyed the parts where he tried to represent the views of his constituents to the Government. Many of us think that that is a noble and important task. It is a privilege that we all share in the House and I hope that he will carry on doing it. He will discover that one of the problems of being a Back Bencher whose party is in government is that those on the Front Bench will expect him to agree with anything that they propose, even when it is not in the interests of his constituents. We look forward to his being a more robust contributor on behalf of his constituents than some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. If he proves to be so, we shall carry on giving him an easy ride. If he fails, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may be a little less charitable than I have been on this delightful occasion, when he rightly spent most of his time on his constituency and its problems.
We had a ridiculous performance from a puffed-up Chancellor. This was the man who once admitted to the competition for new Labour soundbite of the month the extraordinary phrase, "endogenous growth theory". He did not win the soundbite prize with that. As Chancellor, he has been less good at soundbites. He has just come up with another absurd one, "No more boom and bust", while creating both at the same time. He would more successfully be dubbed "Mr. Endogenous Tax Chancellor" because he is the man who cannot resist taxing anything—any money that he sees straying around the economy in private pockets, purses, or bank accounts.
One of the most effective soundbites that was generated by someone other than Mr. Endogenous Growth Theory himself in the run-up to the general election even had a tune to go with it, which was quite catchy. It was, "Things can only get better." I have been out and about in my constituency, and travelling the length and breadth of our once fair and great country to see whether things are getting better now that we are more than three and a half years into a Labour Government and whether people think that things are getting better.
I began by talking to people in the textile industry. I asked them if they felt that the industry was stronger, bigger and more positive than it had been when the Labour party came to office. I discovered that those in the textile industry feel that they are being flattened by this Government's insouciance about manufacturing in general and textiles in particular.
Under this new Labour Government our biggest clothes retailer, Marks and Spencer, has had to announce that it will have to switch a large proportion of its purchasing from British to foreign-made textiles to stay in the very competitive market that Labour has helped to create by its clumsy, high-tax and high-regulation policies.
I have no direct interest in textiles—I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests. I have talked to people with direct experience of the industries that I wish to discuss. I can assure the House that people in the textile industry believe that they are being

sandbagged by regulations, taxes and a Government who do not seem to care when, week after week, mills and clothing factories close.

Mr. MacShane: Hansard will tell us exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, but am I right in thinking that he just stated that Marks and Spencer suffered because of the highly competitive market created by the Labour Government? What is wrong with that?

Mr. Redwood: I was saying that in a competitive marketplace the Labour Government have made it difficult for a retailer that wants to sell domestically produced clothes. The taxes, regulations, interventions and interference of this Government have meant that Marks and Spencer has had to switch. Under the Conservatives, it bought most of its clothes in Britain and was proud to do so. That happened year after year, whatever the conditions. Now that we have a Labour Government, the largest purchaser of our manufactured clothes that retails in this country has decided that it must slash dramatically the amount that it buys in Britain because the Government have made it too dear to make things in Britain.

Mr. Salmond: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have textile businesses in my constituency. When I speak to people in those businesses about the problems, which are substantial, the first thing that they tell me is that they are due to the exchange rate. Why has the right hon. Gentleman not mentioned that? Could it have anything to do with the fact that one of his colleagues was attacking the Liberal Democrats for proposing a devaluation? With all his experience of talking to all these companies, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that they did not talk to him about the sterling exchange rate?

Mr. Redwood: They talked about total costs against the revenue that they can earn from selling the product. The main problem is the cost of making things in Britain. Of course, the exchange rate is an important part of the equation when one considers whether to buy from France, Germany, the United States or Britain. If one combines an economic policy that deliberately drives the exchange rate and interest rates much higher than those of our partners and competitors with a policy that increases the taxes, costs and regulatory burden on British business, one ends up with an explosive mixture that does enormous damage to manufacturing.
I have issued warnings about this for many months and years. I was the one who forecast that we would have a manufacturing recession. I did not forecast a general recession, although that is what the Labour party would like people to believe. Hansard shows that I specifically forecast a manufacturing recession, which is exactly what we have had. It was foreseeable and avoidable. It was deliberately caused by the Government's macro-economic policy and other specific policies that they pursued on manufacturing.

Mr. Beard: The right hon. Gentleman just suggested that the pound had been driven to higher levels by the policies pursued by the Government. Which Government policy does he believe has driven the pound to those heights?

Mr. Redwood: It is the combined impact of all the Government's policies—high tax, high interest rates and


the semi-independent Bank of England. Had they had a different attitude towards tax and spend in the first couple of years, I suspect that the Bank of England would have set different interest rates and we might have had a more acceptable exchange rate. One can never prove those counter-factuals or hypotheticals. However, I remember making proposals on the general movement in economic and tax policy and regulation that would have produced a better mixture of the exchange rate and the interest rate, and would have kept some of those factories open.

Mrs. Beckett: Since the right hon. Gentleman attributes the increase in the exchange rate to the Government's policies, will he explain why two thirds of that increase took place before we were elected to power?

Mr. Redwood: The important point is what has happened since 1997—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady must start to take responsibility for what has been happening in the country under the Government who she supports and of whom she is a member. In 1995, when the Conservative Government were in power, BMW came to Britain and said that it was the best place in Europe bar none in whom to manufacture cars. It put a lot of money behind that judgment. Recently, unfortunately, it pulled out and said that Britain was now the worst place in western Europe in which to make cars. What had changed? We had a change of Government, and the Labour Government have presided over a sharp increase in the value of sterling against the European currencies.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I shall give way when I have finished my point. I am trying to deal with the serious point made by the Leader of the House. The Government have presided over a big increase in the value of the pound against continental currencies and a big increase in the margin of interest rates—we have much higher rates than continental countries in the euro bloc. There were bigger increases in regulation and taxation than competitor economies experienced, so it is no wonder that the Government got into an awful mess.

Mr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman wants to be careful when he talks about BMW, as there was a highly productive labour force at Rover. He is suggesting that it is something else, but everyone knows that there is overcapacity of 20 per cent. in the motor car industry.

Mr. Redwood: That does not mean that closures have to occur in Britain. As we heard earlier in the interesting exchanges on the sad events in the past two days at Luton, we do not make enough cars to meet all the domestic demand. The matter therefore has something to do with costs and competitiveness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been puffing himself up for three and a half years with all sorts of competitiveness and productivity initiatives. However, the sad truth of life is that in this crucial manufacturing area, whether it concerns textiles, steel, cars or other activities, we are clearly less competitive—at these exchange and interest rates, with this regulatory burden and with these costs—

than we were when the Chancellor began his initiatives three and a half years ago. That is why factories are closing and jobs are being lost under his watch. It is also why international investors in manufacturing are now saying that Britain is not the best place in western Europe bar none in which to make things, but the worst.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman and I appear to agree substantially on exchange rates, although we disagree entirely on at least some of the solutions. One of his colleagues asked me a question, so perhaps I can put the same question to him. What scale of devaluation of sterling would be appropriate? After all, it was 45 per cent. lower than the current level when it troughed after we came out of the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Redwood: Exchange rates are determined by market forces. I am not in the business of predicting what I would like to see, as the rates will depend on the market judgment at the time. However, I have set out an alternative general strategy to costs.

Mr. MacShane: That is helpful.

Mr. Redwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman not show a little humility and understand that Governments influence exchange rates, but do not control them? The Government have allowed a high exchange rate against the euro because of their mix of policies. I have just sketched a mix of policies that would produce a different level of exchange rate against the euro, but I am not in the business of predicting exactly what that level would be. That would depend on when the policies were introduced, how the markets reacted to them and other consequences.

Mr. Salmond: As a question of mine started this interesting debate, may I ask why, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that exchange rates are determined by market forces, he also believes that they are now too high? If he believes that they are too high—and I agree with him—he must have an idea of how high they are. Will he tell us, or do we have to persuade the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) to ask him a question if we are to get an answer?

Mr. Redwood: Hon. Members are being rather obtuse. The combination of the level of the exchange rate and the costs imposed, partly by the Government, on British manufacturing mean that, in many areas, it cannot compete and is suffering deeply. It is crying out with anguish. I am suggesting ways in which the mix could be changed. Governments have power to influence the exchange rate, but cannot determine precisely what it will be from day to day, or even how it will end up once a policy is fully implemented. I am just urging the Government to try to do something. They must understand that if they do nothing about high tax, high regulatory costs and all the other things that they have imposed, as well as the high exchange rate, they will continue to preside over the collapse of British manufacturing.

Mr. Bercow: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend referred to productivity. Is it any wonder that Government Back Benchers are so unaware of the decline in the productivity growth rate under their watch, given the


ignorance that the Prime Minister displayed at Question Time last week, when he was challenged factually and in detail on that very point by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer)?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Chancellor has never understood that he needs to do rather better on providing the conditions in which productivity increases. He must allow manufacturing to offset the massive devaluation of the euro and the big revaluation of the pound against European competitor currencies. The Chancellor has not taken part in that debate. Indeed, he has ignored it and pretended that it does not matter. He seems to have turned away from the problem of manufacturing industry being in a slump or recession in many areas.
The car industry is another subject on which I have spent a little time talking to people. There has been a litany of disasters. We know about Dagenham and the troubles there. Today, we have seen the sad closure of the Luton car plant. We have seen the retreat of BMW from Rover, and we know that there are several other large plants around the country where there are question marks or difficulties. We rarely get any attention or answers from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who just waits for the problem to grab the headlines. He just waits for closures and redundancies to be announced, and then comes in and says, "Don't blame me, everybody. I'll find a few pence from the taxpayers' coffers to send a grant and hope that all will be well." He offers Elastoplast when great limbs of the British economy are being cut off as a result of the policies that he pursues.

Mr. Beard: How would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the chief executives of most motor car manufacturing enterprises, who would tell him that specifying a date on which we shall enter the European monetary union would bring great relief to their present position?

Mr. Redwood: I should love to meet someone who said that about entering at the current exchange rate. I thought that until now we agreed that the combination of costs and the exchange rate is suicidal for a lot of manufacturing.

Mr. Beard: That is not what I said.

Mr. Redwood: I know of no industrialists who are saying, "Please take us in now at the present exchange rate. We are suffering today, but we would love to guarantee that we suffer in perpetuity." Would the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) like to explain to the House how big a devaluation he would like, how the Chancellor would secure it, how we could live in the ERM for two years at the new rate—as we would have to do at that new rate—and how that would make for prosperity in manufacturing? I should love to have an answer to those three crucial points.

Mr. Beard: Companies can presume that we may well be in the ERM at some date in the future, having satisfied the conditions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has laid down. That is very different from the position of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman, which would

mean that we would never go in. Their position of "never, never, never" is disturbing many people for whom the right hon. Gentleman is expressing sympathy.

Mr. Redwood: It does not disturb them at all. Business men look at the bottom line—at the balance between costs and revenue, and whether they will make money. The simple truth now is that, unfortunately, because of the Government, too many do not think that they can make money here, so when they have the opportunity they shift their activities and production elsewhere. That is the simple truth of business life and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know it.
I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer my three rather important points on entering the euro, but most people who want to enter the euro agree with the Liberal Democrat position. They want to enter at 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent. below the current rate, but they must explain how to get there. Should we slash interest rates, print so many fivers and set off huge inflation? That would bring the exchange rate down. Is that a good idea? Could that then be held for two years? Our partners and, I think, Mr. Prodi himself have said clearly that we would need to meet the requirement of being two years in the exchange rate mechanism. Would that do us good? I seem to remember that last time we were in it, it had cross-party agreement but it was a loathsome policy that worked extremely badly. One party has apologised and it is a pity that the other two have not, because they were extremely keen on it at the time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The document that we published set out a number of tools that might be used, but the most important is to set a target and make it clear that the Government are working towards that as part of an entry process. We know that that can be effective, although not necessarily, which is why we elaborated some other options. We know that that is likely to be effective because that is precisely what those candidate countries for euro membership did in the run up to the launch of the euro. Because the markets believed that they meant it, they were able to sustain those rates on entry. That is one reason why we have not ducked the question of the range needed by the Government. Any Government serious about entry have to be serious about setting out the range on entry that they believe would be appropriate.

Mr. Redwood: I wish that the Chancellor would get as far in his thinking as the Liberal Democrat spokesman. The Liberal Democrats are trying to answer the question, but they have not succeeded. It is not enough simply to name a date and say where we would like to get to. Exchange rates often overshoot in both directions compared with where business men and certainly Governments would like them to be. To change the trend decisively, the policies that would have to be followed might have to be rather severe, and there might then be undershoot the other way, which would be difficult to handle. The Government need to take us into their thinking on that.
One of the scandals of the non-euro debate is that, from time to time, senior Government spokesmen tell the press that they will have a great national debate, or would like a great national debate, but they never appear. I have offered to debate with any member of the Government, high or low, bright or dull, in any studio, on any platform.


They can chose the chairman or rig the audience, I do not mind; I just want to debate the matter with a Minister. Throughout the Government's lifetime, I have never had the chance to do so, which is a disgrace in a democracy.

Mr. MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: I should like to debate the matter with a Minister. I know that the hon. Gentleman would love to be a Minister, but he is too candid to be made one. He occasionally tells us the truth, and the Government do not like that in their Back Benchers. They will not debate the issue.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I table questions on the five economic tests, we are always given stupid answers. We are not told exactly how the tests will be quantified; we do not know the period over which they are being measured; we do not know when we will have any kind of interim report or answer, and we have not had one so far. We cannot even be told whether the economic strategy that the Government are now following is designed to get us closer to passing the five economic tests. If we cannot be told exactly what the tests are, how they will be judged or scored, or when we will have a result, it is not surprising when our questions about whether we are getting any closer and whether the policies are designed to help us are blocked.
However, I am being distracted from what I wanted to do, which was to explore whether things are getting better rather than talking about the euro, which we clearly will not join. I am far more worried about the power that has been given away in the Nice treaty, which is real, rather than the euro, which the Government have no guts or courage to propose to the British people, and they are right not to do so.
I then visited a farm in my constituency. Thanks to the Government, I do not have many farmers left, but I do have one or two. The farmer I visited in the western part of my constituency told me a sad story. He said that, over many years, the farm had provided a good living for himself, his son and their families. However, in the past few months the son has had to seek employment elsewhere because there was no way in which the farm could sustain two of them. The farmer told me in confidence that, from time to time, he had difficult discussions with the bank manager, that matters are being watched week by week and that, if they continue much longer, he too will have to conclude that the farm that once sustained the two families can no longer sustain even him and his wife. That is a typical experience. Farmers are committing suicide because of the pressure. They are going out of business and their sons are leaving the land. We are in danger of no longer having people to farm Britain's beautiful farmland, yet the Government sit and watch but do nothing. Tell the farmers that things are getting better and they will only cry because they know that there is not a shred of truth in that for them.
I then visited the fishermen in the constituencies of a couple of my hon. Friends in Dorset. I chose Dorset because I do not think that any fishermen are left on the east coast where I went a few years ago. Most of them have been wiped out by a combination of the Government

and the common fisheries policy. The few Dorset fishermen who turned up told me that there were not many others who could have turned up and that it was almost impossible to earn a decent living today. They also said that they did not think that their Government, their Chancellor and their fishing Ministers stood up for them, and they certainly have not brought anything back from Brussels for a long time.
When the Prime Minister went to Nice to give the country away in the draft treaty, why did he not even think about asking for a better deal for our fishermen or to get back our fishing policy? Does it not matter to him that a great maritime nation, which once had fishing boats stacked up in every port around its coasts, now has practically nothing left? When I was in Dorset, I was told of Spanish trawlers sighted off the coast with EU permission to research and investigate other types of fish that they had not yet taken away because they were clearly planning another pre-emptive strike on our fishing resources? The Government are a disgrace and the Chancellor should not say that the economy is doing well or things are getting better when he is wiping out the fishing industry.

Mr. MacShane: In the European debate two or three weeks ago, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) announced that he was standing down at the next election because he felt that no party stood for the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. He was scandalised that no party would be standing for that, except perhaps the UK Independence party. In the light of the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, is he now saying that his personal policy is not that of the Conservative party, and that he is for the repatriation of the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Redwood: Yes, of course I am saying that I support the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. I have a great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but on this occasion I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend are a little behind events. If they care to read the Conservative party's draft manifesto and other documents, they will see that that has been adopted as official Conservative party policy. Had a Conservative Prime Minister gone off to Nice to negotiate a treaty, that would have been number one on his agenda. I am sure that we would have wanted something back before we thought of giving any power away. This Government give all the powers away then come home claiming triumph because they have not tried to do anything contentious.

Mr. Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the fishing industry's present parlous state is largely due to overfishing around these shores and in the North sea under the previous Conservative Government, who could have done something about it? Does he also recognise that, as that is the fundamental problem, to repatriate Britain's fishing policy will do nothing as fish do not happen to respect international boundaries?

Mr. Redwood: It so happens that we have potential control of the most important fishery in the EU, and I see no reason to have a common fisheries policy for the North sea when there is not one for the Mediterranean. That is not just, fair or balanced. Yes, of course, overfishing is


the main problem. The overfishing is occurring now, the problem is getting worse and that is why I am holding the Government to account on it. 1 seem to remember occasionally making such points in the previous Conservative Administration, because it is true that the problem has not suddenly developed, but it is getting much worse.
What matters to the fishermen still left is what this Government are failing to do and the more severe quotas that have just been announced, which will further damage British fishermen. Many Spanish vessels have come in legally under the common fisheries policy, taken too many fish, left too little for our fishermen and caused the problem. That should be addressed and stopped. I do not know how the Government have the cheek to say that things are getting better when the textile industry is being flattened, the retail sector is in part being knocked sideways, the steel sector is being bulldozed, the car industry is being hit for six, farming is being smashed to pieces and fishing is being obliterated.

Ms Keeble: On fishing, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the issue could have been resolved in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988? The then Conservative Government were challenged over the Act in the European courts and merely rolled over and played dead. They then introduced new legislation that caused the current circumstances, in which ships can legally come in and take quotas. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when his party was in government, it could have reached crunch time with the EU, but chickened out?

Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Lady implied, a court case went against us. However, the whole point of raising the issue of the Nice treaty is that the rules should be renegotiated in such a major treaty. As the Prime Minister wanted to give away such a lot to our Commission partners, why did he not bargain on that matter? They did not know at the beginning that he wanted to give those things away. Why did he not stick out for something before he made all his major concessions? He was a lousy negotiator who showed all his cards at the beginning and did not ask for anything back for Britain.
I am being much delayed, rather like my next subject—the trains. When I was asking whether things were getting better, I went to my local station, where 1 hoped to catch a train to London from Reading. I was, of course, too optimistic about the Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government, there was a service every 10 minutes from Reading to Paddington. Trains were occasionally late, but that did not matter because a previous train would probably have been delayed, ensuring a service every 10 minutes. One could live with that. It was not perfect, but it was okay.
When I went to the station the other day, a train limped in after I had waited on the platform for a quarter of an hour. Passengers were told that it was the 11.58 to Portsmouth. A few people cheered, as they wanted to catch that train. The time on the station clock was 12.59 when the 11.58 limped in. Another half hour passed and a train for London finally arrived. No indicator boards were working at the station, so it was an interesting game. We were all on one platform and had to listen to the gobbledegook coming through the loud hailer. Whether or not one could understand that, one had to run to the

platform where the train was arriving and ask the driver where he was going. If one was lucky, the train was going to London.
Well, things have really got better if that is the position that has been reached after three and a half years of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions messing around with the trains.

Mr. Casale: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the other passengers on Reading station whether they voted for the Conservative party in 1992? If they did, they share with him responsibility for making such an appalling mess of rail privatisation.

Mr. Redwood: When the Conservatives left office, there were more trains, they were becoming more reliable and passenger numbers were rising. Three and a half years later, the service has fallen to a level that I cannot remember in my lifetime—indeed, I suspect that we have never seen it before. The public are aware of that and know who to blame. It has happened on this Government's watch, under the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose capricious and idiotic meddling has led directly to regulatory overload and a number of bad decisions. That is why the train system is now almost at a standstill and the roads are completely clogged.
In an economy debate, one of the few things that one would usually have assumed that the Government could sort out is transport. As the economy grew in 1997 and 1998, anybody could see that we needed more and more capacity. I do not believe that there was enough road or rail capacity when the Conservatives left office. Why, then, did the Government slash the road programme, mess up the railway system and over-regulate, instead of freeing the railway system to get on and do the job that it needed to do?
The other day, I tried to travel around the country by car, having given up on the railways—as, unfortunately, many of my constituents have done. I sat in one of those spectacular Labour traffic jams. Some traffic jams occurred in 1997. I remember them well and I knew the time that they took. They were a nuisance, but one could just about handle them. Traffic jams now are much better. I concede that some things have got better, as I recognise that the traffic jams are spectacularly better than they were in 1997. The journey from my constituency to the House used to take 55 minutes, if all was well, and an hour and a half if there were traffic jams. It now takes two and a half hours.
Some hon. Members now spend seven or eight hours travelling each way between their constituencies and the House. They lose more than a whole working day dealing with Labour's traffic jams. That is one day out of the three or four days which the Government sometimes allow us to be present in the House. The situation is spectacularly worse. The arrogant Chancellor said nothing to us tonight, and has said nothing at any other time, about how he will get Britain on the move. A first-rate economy cannot be achieved with third world-style transport. Indeed, on some of our systems, I would be pleased if we reached third-world levels. The third world has rather better trains than ours.
In pursuit of something that had got better, I went to see my local hospital. I was told that 10 per cent. of acute care beds are blocked. Their numbers have already been


reduced by the Labour Government. They are blocked because the people in them want or need to go to a residential or nursing care home, but there are none at the price that the Government are prepared to match for those who need support and help from the state. That is another disgrace. The only thing that has got better in the health service is the length of the waiting lists, which are now much longer than when the Government came to power in 1997.
I went to my local schools and asked them how they were getting on. I asked whether things were getting better there. I was told that classes were definitely getting bigger and that teacher shortages were increasing. The schools cannot get teachers for love and they are not paying them enough money, so there is a simple impasse in my area, where many schools have large classes and an inability to recruit teachers. The same problem applies with regard to doctors and nurses.
A lot of money is being raised in tax. The boastful, arrogant Chancellor tells us that he is spending it all, but there is no money to buy the teachers, nurses, doctors and policemen that we want. That brings me to the local police meeting that I attended to hear the voters of Wokingham talking to the local police. The police told us that they were short of men and that trained policemen were leaving areas such as mine. We were told that 100 or 200 had gone north to find cheaper housing, as they could not afford that in my area. We are, therefore, short of policemen to do the work that we need to be done. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West that the same has happened in his constituency. I was pleased to hear him make a plea for better policing and a clampdown on crime. He knows that the Home Secretary has not delivered.
So, this is a country in which things that people wanted to get better have not got better. There are longer waiting lists, fewer police, more crime, worse schools and bigger class sizes. All the problems which one thought Labour might have sorted out with the spending splurge that has been reannounced 16 times have not been sorted out. We are paying £670 a year in extra tax for the average family, but we are getting nothing for it. We all know that we are being sandbagged at the petrol pumps by the Chancellor with his huge tax rises, so why cannot we have the teachers? We all know that our pension funds are being robbed, so why cannot we have the nurses? We all know that we are being ripped off by the Chancellor's taxes if we travel or need insurance, so why cannot we have the policemen?
This failed Government are presiding over a boom-and-bust economy. They are so wooden that they cannot see the bust in manufacturing, fishing and farming. This Government are presiding over a wasteful splurge of public spending that is not being directed at the things that we want. We want teachers, nurses, doctors and policemen. We can have them and more besides for less than 40 per cent. of public spending—the area that the Government do not seem to know how to work. They waste millions and millions on spin doctors, over-administration, regional development agencies, domes and all the paraphernalia of new Labour nonsense: the things that people do not want. This was a vacuous Queen's Speech from a washed-up

Government. They have deeply disappointed the British people and let them down. I hope that the British people will make their judgment clear come the election.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took us on a mystery tour, must have felt down when he made his visits. Most of the responsibilities for what he found rest at the doorstep of the previous Government. He was a member of that Government, who created the situation that he found when he went on his tour. We are not going to be brainwashed by him into blaming a Labour Government who are trying to improve the situation. He will not get away either with talking about the state of the railways, as it was his Government who privatised the railways and created 100-odd companies, which has caused utter confusion. Moreover, his Government ensured that there was a general lack of investment in the railways for nearly 20 years. It is interesting that he has adopted a Pontius Pilate routine tonight, which involves saying, "It wasn't me, guv'nor; it was everybody else. Not me." He will not get away with that. He even resigned from the previous Government.
I actually felt sorry for the shadow Chancellor tonight. He is trying to pursue an economic policy, but, with his colleagues divided 57 ways, how can he propose any economic alternatives?
On the positive side, I welcome the £21 billion that will be spent on the national health service, the £19 billion that will be spent on education and the £180 billion that will be used over the next 10 years to put right the transport system that was wrecked by the Tories' policies.
I also welcome the increase for pensioners, which was long overdue. I am glad that my colleagues recognised the need for that increase. Pensioners have told me that they are concerned about issues such as the means test, and they want something to be done about the link with earnings. We on the Labour Benches have to be constituency Members of Parliament and support the Government, and we represent our constituents at the same time.
People in Coventry and on its outskirts are concerned about the serious situation at Rolls-Royce Amsty. A few weeks ago, it said that it was moving some of its manufacturing facilities to Canada, with a loss of 500 or 600 jobs. One also has to consider the indirect effect on small suppliers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about what solutions can be found to deal with that problem.
Nissan was mentioned earlier. Some of us on the Trade and Industry Committee have visited that company. Part of the problem may be the exchange rate, but it has other problems, too, one of which is a general lack of investment. Jaguar has also been mentioned. It is doing very well—it is expanding in Coventry. That is a big turnaround from about 10 or 12 years ago, when people were desperately trying to keep Jaguar in Coventry.
Those are some of the good things that have happened under this Government. Those facts contrast with the doom and gloom that we have heard from Opposition Members.
One has to concede that there is a problem in the textile industry, although that is not the Government's fault and we should not be blamed for it. I have discussed it from time to time with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has produced a range of proposals.
I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has introduced to recruit more policemen and, more importantly, his approach to neighbourhood problems. People who live in neighbourhoods that have a yob culture feel under seige—they are terrorised and some, particularly the elderly, are frightened to go out. I welcome his approach to reducing crime.
I also welcome the fact that nationally 250,000 more young people have found jobs. Under the previous Government, many of those young people could not find jobs, and felt isolated and forgotten. While I am on the subject, I also welcome the fact that the present Government have been investing in the acquisition of skills, and will continue to invest in that. Industry badly needs skills. The previous Government did not do very much about that issue. We should remember how many companies took on young people as apprentices under the previous Government. If any were taken on, they had to be bribed for about six months, and then were let go. Under this Government, increasing numbers of young people are finding permanent employment and training.
I and, I am sure, many people up and down the country, welcome the fact that the Chancellor is encouraging other countries to do something about third world debt. Indeed, he is going further—he is trying to deal with the whole issue of the third world, and the role of skills, investment and training in that context. With that approach, we could develop new markets in the third world in the long term.
I was interested by the speech by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). It was the first time that we have heard from the Tory Benches a cohesive idea about Europe, and it is now clear what his views on Europe are. For a Conservative, he spoke a lot of common sense on a number of issues, but especially on Europe. Interestingly, his position is no different from that of the present Government. However, his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench are miles away from him.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned farmers and fisheries. I remember a heck of a lot of debates in the Chamber about fisheries and quotas, which were negotiated by the previous Government. I also remember the fishermen demonstrating. Some of them, especially those in Northern Ireland, burned their boats in response to the previous Government's policies. That Government let them down in Europe and failed to get them appropriate deals on quotas.
The present Government are putting money towards assisting farmers and they are trying to change the whole ethos of country life for those farmers who are considering doing something else. The Government have gone so far as to try to save country post offices—the right hon. Member for Wokingham did not mention that. The farming problem started with the BSE crisis.
The previous Government said that there was no such problem, but eventually said that there was. The present Government are suffering from a legacy that was left to them by the previous Government.
Members of the previous Government accuse us of arrogance and of using too many guillotines, but who was it who introduced the poll tax? The previous Government.

I say to the shadow Chancellor that, whether we talk about cutting £16 billion or £8 billion, one thing is certain: the Opposition's intent to slash local government services. They use coded words when they talk about making savings by cutting bureaucracy. I wonder which bureaucracy they are talking about. When they define local government and local government employees, they normally mean the bureaucrats in local government. That could be a coded way for a Conservative Government to say to local government, "You are now going to be put to the axe."
We remember the 15 per cent. interest rate hikes under the previous Government, although the right hon. Member for Wokingham talked about interest rates under this Government. There were record levels of crime and hospital closures under that Government, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he visited hospitals in his constituency. There were also cuts in education. On the national health service, who remembers the number of people who could not get beds and found themselves on trollies outside wards?
We could go on about the Opposition's record. They failed tonight to put forward a cohesive alternative. It is no good their saying to us, "You must answer our questions and tell us what you are doing, but we do not want to tell you, and you have no right to ask us, about our policies."
The shadow Chancellor certainly has some major problems in his party, which is divided economically, over Europe and in other ways. I felt sorry for him. He tried to put on a brave face. He has obviously been taking acting lessons, but he could not convince us that his colleagues were united behind him.

Mr. William Ross: I listened to some hon. Members speaking at length today about whether we should go into the single currency. Those who make the excuse that the time is not right are simply refusing to take the political decision that has to be taken. That decision will not be taken on economic grounds, and every sensible body in this country knows that. It is a political decision.
Some say that the positions that they are currently adopting are temporary and that they are sitting on the fence to see whether things will improve. The plain truth is, of course, that that position has been temporary for so long that it is becoming permanent. That may be the best that we can hope for, until we have a Government who can make up their mind on that matter. Whether I will still be in the House at that time—it may be a few Parliaments down the way—I do not know. If I am not, I shall certainly encourage my successor to vote against any such foolishness—I have lived through and seen the consequences of the exchange rate mechanism.
However, I did not come here today to talk about that aspect of the Government's policy.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman represents part of the United Kingdom, which has an interface with the eurozone countries. I hear endless complaints from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in other Ulster parties about the difference between the pound sterling and the punt, which is now part of the eurozone. Does the hon. Gentleman see


no advantage—no tiny advantage—in having the same currency for what is now, in effect, one economy in Ireland?

Mr. Ross: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is not one economy in Ireland. If he had tried to buy a house in Dublin over the past year or two, he might not be so accommodating about the euro. As it happens, I believe the fact that the economy in the Irish Republic is roaring ahead in this way—unsustainably in the long term, I think—is a clear indication of what can happen to any nation in the eurozone. But, as I have said, I did not come here to talk about that. It is a subject for debate on another day.
During the Chancellor's interesting speech, to which I listened carefully, I asked him about public sector debt in the context of his own remarks. He had spoken of the need for a sensible ratio between public sector debt and gross domestic product. I did not receive a very satisfactory answer; the Chancellor referred me to the Red Book.
Everyone has talked about the "economic cycle", not just in the present Administration but in earlier ones, but no one has ever told me how long the cycle will last. I think we should aim not just for what is described as a balanced budget, but for a budget that steadily reduces our public sector debt to nil. That would at least remove the need for high interest payments. I always think that borrowing money and paying interest at the end of the day costs the nation far more than taxing honestly to raise the money. If that were done, at least everyone would know where they stood—but I suppose that honesty is a bit too much to expect from any Chancellor when an election is approaching.
Some years ago, I raised in the House the question of science parks and Northern Ireland universities. I am glad to say that my approach eventually bore fruit, and that in the last week or so a science park has been launched in my constituency. It will deal with research and development. That is very praiseworthy, but if products emerge, how on earth are we to retain the factories in the United Kingdom that make those products unless, within the European system, we can match the tax rates applying in other countries?
I can see all the research and development work done in my constituency moving to Cork—or perhaps to Belgium or Turkey, where my local textile industry is going. It is going there for a variety of reasons—not all tax reasons, and not all the reasons cited by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat wide of the mark, in that he omitted the relative costs of wages involved in production. Hundreds of my constituents are employed in making goods for Marks and Spencer, and I took a keen interest in what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, but I thought a good deal of it was highly inaccurate. I wish he had remained to hear me say that.
My main reason for speaking in the debate, however, relates not to those matters but to the cost of road fuel in the United Kingdom. The House will recall the anger in the streets that spilled over into demonstrations in September—demonstrations that failed at the later attempt, or were defused to a minor extent, because of action taken by the Government in recent weeks.
It is, I think, well known that Northern Ireland fuel retailers suffer rather more grievously than retailers, and indeed consumers, in Great Britain. I know many Members are vaguely aware that there is a problem; but I do not think they realise how serious it is in Northern Ireland. I am sure that not many have read the report on the subject by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which was published last year, or the Government's response to it.
Members are probably even less aware of the Government's ignorance of the extent, the ramifications and the seriousness of the problem that confronts retailers of petrol and other fuels in Northern Ireland. At the end of last month, I asked the Chancellor for his estimate of the sums lost, and was referred yet again to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 March. That appears to be the standard answer: it has been given to me on a number of occasions. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Chancellor would
estimate the loss of revenue through the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997.
The Paymaster General replied:
HM Customs and Excise assess the total revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through cross-border shopping and smuggling of road fuels in Northern Ireland was about £100 million in 1998.—[Official Report, 20 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 442W.]
I did not want to know what the amount was in 1998; I wanted to find out what it was in 1999 and 2000. The Government do not appear to have upgraded their estimates of the loss of revenue during the intervening time.
I asked the Chancellor yet again what was his estimate of the quantity of petroleum products smuggled from the Irish Republic and other countries into Great Britain
in each of the last five years up to the latest date for which information is available.
I was told:
 No such estimates are available.—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 953W.]
The Government do not really know whether any smuggling is taking place. They have no idea.
Why is that? Does the Treasury not think it worth while at least to put some inquiries in hand in an effort to find out what the loss of revenue is? Even if it is only £100 million, that is still a considerable sum. It would certainly take care of a lot of the public expenditure problems that we have in Northern Ireland—although that is not the way in which I view what I consider to be a loss to the whole United Kingdom economy. I prefer to look at such matters from a United Kingdom rather than a narrow Northern Ireland perspective. But I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland believes that the estimate was accurate.
Times have moved on. There has been a change of duty in the Irish Republic only in the last week. There has been a 1 per cent. cut in VAT, a cut in excise duty on diesel fuel of 7.3 Irish pence a litre and 2.4 Irish pence on a litre of unleaded petrol, to take effect at midnight. That, of course, related to 7 December. If it was worth your while to drive a car across the frontier and fill it up with petrol or diesel in the Irish Republic—perfectly legally—last week or the week before, it is a sight better to do it this week, and an awful lot of people are doing that.
I hope to explain the ramifications and how serious the damage is to a huge chunk of the economy in Northern Ireland. At present, unleaded petrol in the Irish Republic


costs a maximum of 62p a litre, and can be bought for a good deal less. Diesel fuel costs 53p a litre. I am talking not about Irish pence, but about pence sterling. There is a huge gap between one price and another that someone can pay simply by driving across the border. If a similar loss were being experienced anywhere else, I think the Government would try to do something about it, for reasons that I will give later.
Between 1995 and 1999—these are the latest figures I have—the number of vehicles in Northern Ireland rose by 108,900, an increase of 17.8 per cent. The number of heavy good vehicles rose by only 4.5 per cent.
Those statistics prove what some of us have suspected. People move their heavy goods vehicles across the frontier into a shell company in the Irish Republic because of the huge savings in vehicle excise duty. They also benefit from the cheaper fuel. Therefore, the number of heavy goods vehicles is up slightly, but the number of other vehicles has vastly increased.
The number of private light goods vehicles has increased by 16 per cent. and two-wheeled motor vehicles are up by 43 per cent. That is a large increase, but those vehicles do not use as much fuel as heavy goods vehicles. However, between 1995 and 1999, the consumption of diesel and petrol fell from 878,900 tonnes to 498,000 tonnes—a decrease of 380,000 tonnes, or 43 per cent. According to the Library, 100,000 tonnes of fuel contains approximately 1.36 million litres. I do not have the capacity to work out the exact loss, but the idea that the Treasury cannot work it out is ridiculous.
I hope that I get real answers to my questions because the response so far has been outrageous. The House cannot be satisfied with it. I hope that the Treasury will take on board what I am saying and give me a proper answer. According to my rough calculations, smuggling caused the loss of £220 million of revenue in 1999. The problem is worse now. The loss is huge and it accumulates over the years at about that rate. It does not take long until the immense sum of £1 billion is lost to the United Kingdom Exchequer.
Some of the activities are perfectly legal. People drive back and forth across the border to fill their vehicles. We can live with that, but we cannot live with smuggling. People who drive up to 40 miles to the border to fill their vehicles and return with two or three cans of fuel in the boot are able to run their vehicles for a week before they go back to fill up again. The trouble is, however, that they are not only filling up their vehicles with fuel, but doing their shopping. The economic loss to the whole retail sector in Northern Ireland is enormous. That problem has to be addressed.
Everyone buying in the Republic pays for their shopping by credit card and, because there are 1.28 Irish punts to the pound sterling, it is well worth doing. In Northern Ireland, Tesco and Sainsbury are dropping their price to 70p or 80p a litre, but that is squeezing smaller businesses in an unjustifiable way that I bitterly resent.
The Government announced in the Queen's Speech that they would introduce a raft of Bills to get tough on crime. Some hon. Members referred to the yob culture at which that legislation is aimed, but I am concerned about massive thuggery. Criminal activity in fuel smuggling occurs on a huge scale and it has not been tackled to any extent. The real beneficiaries of that smuggling operation, which accounts for perhaps £100 million a year in lost

revenue, are the terrorist organisations, and it is being conducted almost exclusively by the Provisional IRA. Are the Government not tackling the problem because they do not want to annoy that organisation too much in case it does something nasty?
The Select Committee was perfectly clear on the matter last year. In its report, the Financial Secretary said that the problems were brought home to him
on 7 October when I met the Petrol Retailers Association.
He went on to say:
 The Institute of Petroleum has confirmed that it cannot provide sales data nor can this be obtained from the major oil companies.
The Committee recommended that the Department of Economic Development should seek information and investigate the problem. Why has that not been done?
The Minister also agreed that there were strong signs of changes in purchasing behaviour because of the price differential. Time has moved on and it is clear that there is a real problem. There is a massive criminal operation and loss of revenue to the United Kingdom. That revenue fuels the activities of the terrorist organisations, principally the Provisional IRA. It is long past the time when the Government should have made a serious effort to destroy that criminal conspiracy and to overcome the real problem.
The Economic Secretary said in the Select Committee report that the loss of
£100 million in the context of £21 billion overall from fuel duties as a whole is really a very, very small part of the overall picture.
So it is of the overall picture for the UK, but it is not small for people who own filling stations or grocery shops, or who are retailers of almost any consumable good, within 20 or 30 miles of the frontier in Northern Ireland. It is a huge economic and social problem that has to be dealt with. I do not want the Government telling me what they have done to prevent the abuse; I just want it stopped. The Government have the resources of this powerful and wealthy nation to deal with the problem. Will they please get on with it before everyone who is affected by the criminal activity of massive fraud, which has been going on for far too long, is ruined by it.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I have been listening to an extraordinary debate. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) complained about the marketplace and demanded intervention on the price of housing and the shortage of public sector workers. He seemed to have forgotten that the Government have successfully reduced unemployment in his constituency to such an extent that there is a problem, which has been acknowledged, but that is what markets do. I would have thought that he, more than anyone, would have recognised that.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) claimed to have fathered Prudence, and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) waltzed us through the past and rewrote history. He failed to acknowledge that we have gone through the little gate—"portillo" is the only Spanish word I know; it means little gate—and entered a large room. In that room, which is a bit like the Tardis, we have discovered the truth of Conservative policies: massive under-investment, bigger debts, mass unemployment and national despair. He seemed to have forgotten that.
I do not want to approach matters in the same way. Instead, I want to look at the reality in my constituency. The principal actions of the Government have created economic stability by giving the Bank of England independence and implementing tough fiscal rules. In some respects, the first two years of this Administration were painful in my constituency, but we are now beginning to see real benefits as a result of falling unemployment and massive reductions in mortgage rates, and those benefits will be sustained. Employment for all is becoming a reality.
Ironically, as I said during the statement on the Vauxhall problem in Luton, it is not more than a handful of years ago that parts of my constituency suffered from mass unemployment. The figures in some wards were immoral and were in excess of 20 per cent. As a result of a partnership between local government, central Government and the private sector, we have seen significant investment that has brought about an economic revival. There are still some problems to which I will refer, and I should be grateful if those on the Treasury Bench would take note of some of my suggestions.
We have seen public service investment and, quite rightly, it has been focused on areas of great need such as health, education and law and order. However, for many of those projects, investment takes a long time to come through. It is not possible to build overnight the mental health hospital that has been so desperately needed in my constituency. We cannot refurbish overnight the accident and emergency unit at the Countess of Chester hospital, but it has now been done. We cannot re-establish overnight—and not at all under the previous Administration—the primary care surgery in the Westminster ward of my constituency. Under the previous Administration it was regarded as a no-hope area, a small backwater that did not really matter. That, coupled with the fact that it was a one-doctor practice, meant that it did not matter. That surgery is now working and is properly equipped to a high standard, but it has taken time.
We are now seeing significant reductions in child and pensioner poverty. Contrary to what was said by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, pensioners in my constituency positively welcomed the Chancellor's statement about pension changes. Many of my pensioners are on small occupational pensions. Many of those from the blue-collar sector only joined their schemes in the mid-1970s when the actions of a Labour Government made that possible. Consequently, they are retiring on the occupational pension of half a working life, so the amounts are fairly low. When they have that and their state benefits, it is positively to their advantage to receive additional payments such as the £200 winter fuel allowance, free television licences and free eye tests, all outside the tax regime. It more than compensates them for some of the rather silly ideas that we have heard from the Opposition this week.
I want to consider the attitude of pensioners. I have been talking to pensioners and they have said that they do not trust the Conservative party. I would be the first to admit that in my constituency, there was uproar at the impact of the first two years of inherited Tory spending plans and the figures that emerged as a result of relatively

low inflation, but pensioners have said unequivocally that they do not want to go back to what they had in the 1980s under the previous Government.
My town is dominated by the petrochemical industry and, as is the pattern in virtually every petrochemical town throughout the western world, small pockets of housing were built in close proximity to the industry where the chemical workers originally lived. As the industry has become more prosperous, and as a function of technology there are fewer people, those pockets of housing are now areas of quite severe poverty. My constituency has five wards in the poorest 10 per cent. of household income category in the country. Some of the Government's programmes have helped to raise the base level for those families. The application of various phases of the single regeneration budget, under both this Government and the previous Administration, have been helpful. Neighbourhood renewal has been helpful, too. Recently, we have had some fantastic help as a result of the introduction of the education action zone in the constituency and a massive public-private partnership to redevelop five derelict schools. The development of sure start and other programmes has also been helpful.
I urge the Government to look at those programmes in a holistic manner, so that the formulae by which they are applied keep pushing up the levels in a particular community. It is difficult to attract new high-tech industries to move close to such areas. Realistically, they will go not there, but will go to locations a little further away. However, we have been able to bring up employment opportunities from a very low base. We are beginning to get closer to full employment than anyone ever envisaged, but we must keep pushing because simply leaving the market to run riot will not solve the problem.
I was therefore a little disappointed when SRB6 was refused, when the neighbourhood renewal fund formula was announced last fortnight and when a relatively low settlement was announced under the local government finance formula. When they consider such pockets of deprivation, I urge the Government to look at the problem in a holistic way, to ensure that projects that have been supported through the SRB and the neighbourhood renewal fund are not damaged, and that the progress that has been made over the years is not wasted. That is an important observation in the context of communities such as mine.
The other point that I want to make arose as a result of the earlier discussion on Vauxhall. We need some significant infrastructure investment. It is absurd that all the major chemical and vehicle manufacturing plants within the constituency are almost at the most congested part of the M6, with traffic going southwards to where the major markets are. As a result of the years of under-investment in rail freight by the previous Administration, none of the plants in that area has any resource to move goods and services by rail. That is crazy.
Vauxhall, Kemira, Shell and Associated Octel all have railway sidings leading into their plants, but as a result of under-investment in rail freight, more and more products have gradually shifted to the road. The effect is to create a bottleneck on the M6, which in turn blocks access to the market for many other businesses in the region. Again, a holistic approach is needed. I have made that point to my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and through the regional


development agency. We need to ensure that programmes in communities such as mine are supported from all angles. The Government can have an impact.
Fantastic progress has been made over the past few years. I did not believe that we would hit those unemployment figures as quickly as we have. I did not believe that we would see young single mothers reaching out for the new opportunities that have emerged as a result of investment by the private sector in partnership with the benefits that can be obtained through the working families tax credit.
We have had some exciting changes. There is some huge investment in training; work is done with colleges in the community and with local industry. Those changes need continued support so that pockets of poverty such as those I have described are not given money periodically and then ignored. There must be a sustained effort to support them until they can support themselves within the vibrant new economy that is developing as a result of the Government's efforts.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring an interest as a director and shareholder of a manufacturing business which has been the subject of some discussion during the debate. However, I shall not focus on that this evening.
I begin by reflecting on the fact that, as someone who has been in this place for more than 20 years, I find it slightly bizarre to see the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer parading not just around this country but around international meetings too, as though they were long-standing, experienced advocates of the merits of an open free enterprise economy.
I listened with respect, as I always do, and almost always in agreement to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who remarked on the irony of the fact that the Prime Minister now regularly reminds us of the benefits of a low-tax economy and a flexible labour market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rarely loses an opportunity to lecture us on the benefits of monetary stability and his old friend fiscal prudence. Like my right hon. Friend, every time I hear that in this place and on television I wonder what those two estimable people were doing when those important ideas for the development of an open, competitive, liberal market economy were being fought through in the teeth of vehement opposition from Labour Members, including some who have attended today's debate.

Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman will recall the famous remark that was made in the 19th century about catching the Whigs bathing and walking away with their clothes. Is not the problem for the right hon. Gentleman's party that they have to find some new clothes that will once again attract the electorate?

Mr. Dorrell: No. As I intend to argue, not least of the reasons why it is bizarre to hear Labour Ministers and Members arguing the case for a liberal, competitive, open market economy is that when one compares what they do in practice with what they advocate in theory one finds a significant divorce between their words and their actions. I shall go on to develop that argument. It is not so much that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stolen the

Whigs' clothes when they were bathing; it is that that they like disporting themselves in front of the mirror, but never actually go into the sea.
When the labour market was being liberalised and trade union reform was being fought through in the teeth of bitter opposition, where were the friends of labour market flexibility? When we were arguing the case, year by year, for reducing the direct tax burden on the wealth-creating sector—whether through income tax cuts or corporation tax cuts—where were those who now say that such cuts are important parts of British economic policy? Where were they when the Tory Governments of the 1980s and 1990s were arguing through those changes? As the House knows, they were in the No Lobby. Where were they when battles were being won against the inflationary pressures that we inherited in the late 1970s? Once again, they were in the No Lobby.
The first point to remember when we hear Ministers make the case about the importance of liberal market reform is that they are the Johnny-come-lately to the policy. They picked up the brief after the difficult case has been won.
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) say that he did not believe it was possible that a stable, successful, competitive economy might improve opportunities for his constituents in the way that it has. Of course, his bewilderment as economic success improves the life chances of his constituents was shared throughout his party when the reforms were being introduced.
However, that is history. It is more important, especially as we approach the next general election, to reflect on where those people were when the changes were being driven through. Moreover, how credible are they now as guardians of the economy? How credible are they as the people who should continue the process of improving economic competitiveness in the increasingly competitive global marketplace where Britain has to earn its living, now and in the future?
No Conservative Member should need any persuading when it comes to the importance of sound money and sound public finance, of low taxes and flexible markets. I suspect that the Chancellor thinks sometimes that we need to be persuaded, but we take the importance of those things as read. We want to know whether those on the present Treasury Bench believe the rhetoric that they use, and whether, when the tough choices have to be made, they will deliver the policy about which they are prone to wax so lyrical when no cost is attached.
I shall go through the four tests that the Government have specified; I do not think that those on the Treasury Bench will dissent when I list them. They are the tests of sound money, sound public finance, low taxes and flexible markets. I have heard those tests listed so often that I cannot believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will leap to the Dispatch Box and say, "No, that is not our policy." The right hon. Gentleman does not always speak with the full-throated admiration of all his Back-Bench Members, but what Minister ever does? I think that Ministers would seek to apply the four tests that I have listed to their policies.
First, I shall deal with what is, from the Government's point of view, the easy test—the test of sound money. In fact, I shall offer a degree of bipartisanship on that question. The Government are entitled to credit for having


increased the independence of the Bank of England, and for entrenching the discipline of counter-inflationary policy.
I can see that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) wants to leap to his feet and ask when I espoused a policy of sound money. Before he does, I must say that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) would bear witness to the fact that I advocated that policy somewhat before some other members of my party did. However, I give credit to the Chancellor for his introduction of the policy.
I also give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), one of whose first actions when he became shadow Chancellor was to make it clear that the Conservative party did not wish to oppose the principle of sound money. It is a very important principle, and I offer considerable support to the Government for the fact that they have taken us down that road. Putting an end to the notion of political money was an important step forward in the delivery of a liberal and competitive economic environment. There is broad, all-party agreement that the five-decade experiment with political money was an abject failure.
In case it is thought that I am offering unqualified support for every aspect of this part of Government policy, I must say that the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England would be significantly enhanced if almost all its members did not require the Chancellor's say-so before their appointment was agreed.
In addition, I think that the Monetary Policy Committee's independence, and the basis of knowledge on which it makes its decisions, would be substantially enhanced if we introduced into our structure something more closely akin to the American Federal Reserve or the old German Bundesbank. Those bodies sought to ensure that different interests from the real economy were represented in the monetary policy decision-making process. However, with those qualifications, I offer the Government reasonably high marks when it comes to the sound money test, the first of the four that I want to discuss.
The second test is the test of sound public finance, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon had something to say. He reflected on the declining reputation of Prudence, and said that it had been substantially qualified by the way in which she has been misused by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is perfectly true that, in the early years of this Parliament, the Chancellor held the growth of public spending below the level of growth of the economy as a whole. The result was a significant improvement in the inherited fiscal deficit, to the extent that there is now a significant fiscal surplus. That is welcome. However, an election has now come into view, and what we now have is in no way consistent with the rhetoric on sound public finance and prudence of which the Chancellor is so fond.
The Government's figures show that their expectation for the years ahead is for 2.25 per cent. growth in the economy as a whole and 3.4 per cent. growth in public spending. One does not need a degree in mathematics to know that if the economy is growing at 2.25 per cent. and public spending is growing at 3.4 per cent., public spending will take a progressively larger share of the

national income for as long as that policy continues. That can only result, either now or later, in an increase in the tax burden. Despite everything that the Government say about low taxes, they are committed to increasing the tax burden to deliver a policy in which public spending accounts for a rising share of national income. A commitment to a relentless rise in the tax burden is a huge disbenefit to this country's competitiveness in the global marketplace.
The case against the Government's policy is even more serious than that. What would happen to their plans if the economy did not grow by 2.25 per cent. as they assume that it will? The response to that question from Labour Members, and occasionally from some Ministers, is, "Well, this is a Labour Government. We can assume competence, and everything is going to be all right. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. This Government will deliver 2.25 per cent. growth, and we do not need to worry." That is spellbindingly naive.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon observed, when one is planning a business or an economy in a global marketplace, one ought to allow for the possibility that there are other influences on how that business or economy might develop, besides the decisions taken in Great George street. I am a former incumbent of those offices, and I know the illusion of grandeur and power that goes with sitting in them.
I mean no disrespect to the Chancellor when I suggest that Mr. Alan Greenspan has at least as much influence over the world economy as the British Chancellor of the Exchequer does. Mr. Greenspan certainly does not believe that we can look forward with a totally sanguine view to stable growth in the next two or three years. He has been pursuing a tight money policy in the United States for the past few months, precisely because he is afraid that growth is running ahead too fast. Only last week, he signalled that that policy stance needed to change.
The Government's spending plans are wrong because, even if all their best assumptions are fulfilled, they will result in an increase in the tax burden. The plans are doubly wrong because they assume that the economy will continue on a stable path, despite the fact that virtually every post brings new concerns about a potential hard landing in the United States, that there has recently been an aggressive tightening of monetary policy in Japan, and that some, but not all, parts of the eurozone have serious inflationary problems.
I am not engaging in predictions about what will happen in 2001, but it is not difficult to find people who believe that we ought to be preparing—whether we run a Government or a business—for the possibility that markets in 2001 will be rather tougher than they have been for some years past. Wise businesses, like wise Governments, are preparing for the fact that next year will be less good than both 2000 and 1999. However, we have a Government who assume that next year will be better.
When I wonder about the Chancellor's present relationship with Prudence, I ask why, at a time when most economy policy makers throughout the world are assuming that circumstances are likely to become more hostile next year, we alone have a Government who think that things are going to get so much better that we can launch ourselves along a public expenditure growth path that they were not prepared to countenance as prudent


during the much more favourable circumstances that prevailed—as we can see in retrospect—since 1997. Of course, perhaps I know the answer—perhaps this is an election year. That may be the full extent of the answer.
On the second test—that of sound public finance—the Government fail partly because they are planning for higher taxes and partly because they have forgotten about the need for a safety margin. No one ever plans for the crunches; if we look back at economic history, people did not seem them coming and plan accordingly. Uncertainty and the unknown derail Government spending plans; they have often done so in the past. By removing a safety margin, the Government are heightening the risk of derailment as a result of the unknown or even—as I am arguing—not the unknown but matters on which plenty of editorials are being written. If hon. Members want to read one, they need only turn to the centre pages of today's Financial Times.
So much for the second test; what about the third test of low taxes? It is much easier to produce an answer for that test, because the Government fail it completely. In the run-up to the previous general election, the Prime Minister repeatedly said that there was no need for tax increases; Labour were not planning tax increases and indeed, until March of this year, he said that there had been no tax increases. He appeared to be the last man in Britain who believed that to say that the tax burden had not increased under Labour was a sustainable line. However, even the Prime Minister has deserted that position; even he has been forced to admit that, under the Labour Government, the tax burden has increased, is increasing and will go on increasing.
That seemed to come as a late surprise to Members on the Treasury Bench. Long after everyone else in Britain—people who occasionally drive on to a garage forecourt, pay a council tax bill, know what their pension fund has to pay, or have seen what has happened to the climate change levy—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) points out that, even now, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not acknowledge that. The Chief Secretary is responsible for publishing the figures. If he is not yet convinced that the tax burden is increasing, he should read his own figures. I will give him credit if he reads the figures for which he is responsible.
As I have already noted, the Government's spending plans for the future are for a continuing increase in the tax burden. There may be political differences of view as to whether we want high or low tax and spend, but there can be no argument that at present, throughout the rest of the world, Governments are coming to the conclusion that, in order to create wealth in a competitive, global marketplace, they need to reduce the tax burdens on their wealth-creating sector.
In Germany, one of the British Government's political soul mates has introduced major tax reform. Chancellor Schröder is a more obvious political soul mate of the Labour Government than of my party; he is cutting taxes. The French Government are cutting taxes, as are the Italian and Spanish Governments. Against that background, what are the British Government doing? They are planning not merely to increase taxes, but to build a further increase in the tax burden on to the existing increase. At the same time as the British Government are using the rhetoric of market economics, they are resolutely marching in the opposite direction from the German, French and Italian Governments—all of whom

realise that, if they are to compete successfully in today's marketplace, one of their key objectives must be to reduce the burden of taxation on their economy.
The third test is whether the Government believe their rhetoric about low taxes. We assume that they do not, because they are certainly not putting it into practice.
The fourth and final test applies to the Government's claim to be in favour of flexible markets. When I hear members of the present Government arguing the case for flexible markets, I do not believe that they understand what those words mean. Just as, with tax policy, they are marching in the opposite direction from our colleagues elsewhere in Europe, so with regulation and the way in which government impacts on business—what is known in shorthand as the red tape burden—the Government are resolutely increasing the burden on British business, while Governments elsewhere in the world are understanding the importance of reducing that burden.
The list is familiar, so it may be burdensome to hon. Members if I go through it again. There is the working time directive, the part-time workers directive and the parental leave directive—and today we have another: the information consultation directive. Sometimes all that is used to make a case against the European Union, but I make no secret of the fact—I imagine most people in the House are aware of it—that I am in favour of this country's active participation in the European Union. However, I am not in favour of British Governments who accept those regulatory burdens on our business, because they reduce the competitiveness of British business in an open marketplace.
Nor am I in favour of an interpretation of the role of the EU that sees such regulation as part of its function. What the working time directive has to do with the completion of the single market has always been a mystery to me. Some of the regulations come from the European institutions, but not all of them; some of them are home grown.
The British Government must be the only Government in the world who think that the way to improve competitiveness and our opportunity to create wealth in a global marketplace is to introduce compulsory recognition of trade unions. I know of no other Government who think that that is the way to sharpen the competitive edge of their industrial base. Yet that is the policy of our Government. Only the British could take seriously a Government who say that they are in favour both of liberal market reform and of compulsory recognition of trade unions.
I freely concede that Ministers use the rhetoric of liberal economics, but at the same time they pursue policies that increase the burden of public spending, which can only increase the tax burden on the economy—all at a time when our competitors are doing precisely the opposite.
We are often asked to believe that there is now bipartisan agreement on the idea of a liberal competitive economy, and that the transformation undertaken—against vehement Labour opposition—by the Conservative Governments of 1979 to 1997 is now the subject of a broad bipartisan consensus. That view is often repeated, but it is totally wrong, and mere repetition does not make it true.
It is true that in 1997 this country had an important competitive advantage over its major international competitors. Our economy was more liberal and flexible


than those of most of our competitors, especially those in Europe. However, the present Government have sown complacency by resting on their laurels, believing that the problem has been solved, and that there is no need to invigorate the economy further or ask how to make it more competitive and flexible, because the issue has been dealt with.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that the Tories had stolen the Whigs' clothing while they were away bathing—but it is our competitors who have stolen our clothing while we were bathing. Our competitive advantage is being squandered by a Government who do not believe their own rhetoric. That is the case that we will take to the country. I believe that, in many ways, that case is the most important difference between the parties. As people come increasingly to understand that case, they will understand that it is a reason to throw out a Government who have squandered such an important national advantage.

Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), in his absence, on his maiden speech. I was particularly interested in and appreciated his description of his constituency. In the 1980s, it witnessed the collapse of its heavy industry, which was one of my formative political experiences. His description also reminded me of the difference between the previous Conservative Government's response to that collapse—when they turned their back on unemployed people in the west midlands—and the current Government's action to tackle unemployment and get people back to work. The Government intervened at Longbridge, and they have responded positively to events in Luton.
In many parts of the country, the Government have almost made unemployment disappear as an issue. That is down entirely to their management of the economy, and I am sure that it will probably be the single most important factor in ensuring the Government's re-election in the forthcoming general election. The Government's economic policy is the most important factor for my constituents, who have benefited from it in many ways, particularly in financial stability.
I tell the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that protecting financial stability is not a question of resting on our laurels or ensuring that we do not meddle and intervene, but of providing positive support where improvement is needed, particularly in productivity.
Financial stability—particularly low interest rates—is desperately important for hard-working families in my constituency. Now, not only are interest rates at half the peak level reached under the Tories, but, according to a recent report in The Economist, they are at their most stable for the past 10 years. That is good news for business, and it is exceptionally good news for people in my constituency, three quarters of whom are home owners and carry substantial debt.
Low interest rates have saved the average home owner about £800 annually and made it possible to abolish the last of mortgage interest relief at source. All serious political parties realise that MIRAS abolition—which

Conservatives Members have tried to dress up as a tax increase—was important for the long-term health of the housing market.
Low inflation has also benefited my constituents. The fact that inflation, too, has almost disappeared from the public consciousness as a financial problem is another tribute to the Government's successful management of the economy. We are in the happy situation of enjoying a consumer boom and low inflation. It is a particularly happy economic climate for those of us who like consumer booms.
In his speech, the shadow Chancellor said that the Government have no vision at all. Such a claim is extraordinary. Our Chancellor has relentlessly pursued the creation of a secure economy, which allows us to address all the pressing social issues.
The shadow Chancellor also outlined his five financial disciplines. Before coming into the Chamber, I quite carefully read, in one of his recent speeches, his description of the disciplines. I had thought that two of them were new. However, as the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) devised the committee of wise men, only one proposal is new. How can one present a vision for the future by proposing a series of old measures and U-turns? The Chancellor has offered a vision of economic stability, financial security and the tackling of social issues, which is important for the families in my constituency.
I especially welcome the children's tax credit, which comes into effect in April. It is true that some of the people who have lost their married couples allowance will not be entitled to the children's tax credit, but if we are to have a mature political debate, we must consider what the Government's priorities should be. All the evidence suggests that the financial pressures are on families with children. That is why I support the Government's policy of giving them the lion's share of the financial benefits.
I wanted to make sure that the Conservative party had nothing to say about children, so I looked up the policy section on its website. When we tapped in "Children", the message was, "Sorry, your search terms has found no matches. Please try a broader term." We tapped in "Human being", but we found nothing on that either.
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that among my constituents, particularly among the women, there is a high level of knowledge about the children's tax credit and the income level needed to qualify. With an average income of £19,600, people in my constituency tend to know what benefits they will receive. In addition to the extra almost £5 a week in child benefit, many people in my constituency with children will get at least £10 a week extra, and there is more for people on modest incomes. About 3,000 families in Northampton get the working families tax credit.
On unemployment and the working families tax credit, one of the reasons why the old family credit would not deal with all the problems caused by unemployment is that it does not include the child care tax credit. The Conservative party has given no assurances on that. I assure the shadow Chancellor, in case he does not realise it, that lone parents can get out to work only if their child care is paid for. The child care tax credit has been essential for that, as has the availability of personal advisers on the new deal scheme, which has made it


possible for women who have not worked for many years to get advice, help and access to child care, and to get it paid for.
In my constituency, unemployment has been mercifully low for a long time, but lone parents have always found it hard to get work. That situation is changing. I have spoken to lone parents who have not been out to work for 10 or 15 years, and who are now £60 to £65 a week better off because of the combined effect of the working families tax credit, the child care tax credit and the new deal.
I welcome the measures in the Queen's Speech that will help home buyers. I hope that there will be more legislation in future to protect home buyers from the kind of problems associated with endowment mortgages, and to make the capital invested in their home more accessible to home owners during retirement, when basic maintenance can become a problem. I assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that my constituents take up such concessions to home owners. Many of them have spoken to me about taking advantage of the VAT reduction to insulate their homes.
I recognise that time is short, but I shall mention a couple more points. The first concerns savings. The Opposition made much of the changes to the savings ratio, but all the projections from the Treasury suggest that it will increase. I pay tribute to the work done to develop individual savings accounts, which all the reports from the industry suggest have not merely served as a replacement for PEPs and TESSAs, but have encouraged more people to save. It is clear that in future the savings habit will become more important, especially in relation to pensions. Of course, families that have savings have some protection against the problems that people run into when they get into debt or when a cash crisis arises.
Barclays home loans division has done a huge amount of work on this subject. Family breakdown is one of the main problems that gives rise to debt. The work that the Government have done to support families, for example, by sharing family tax credits between parents and recognising the work of step-parents, is extremely important. It is helping to ensure that families can deal with some of these problems.
On debt and savings, we need to get people into the habit of saving for their pensions. The shadow Chancellor mentioned that, and said that the Conservatives intended to let young people opt out of paying national insurance. In doing so, they would ignore two difficulties. One is the loss of money to the national insurance fund, which would amount to about £2 billion, I think. The other difficulty is what will happen to people who pull out of national insurance, but then pull out of the alternative. The Financial Services Authority report suggests that, over 10 years, that will happen to about 5 per cent. of the people.
How would the Conservatives deal with those people who ended up with no provision? Would they compel people to take out alternative pensions? If people did not end up with a pension, would the Conservatives say, "Right. You won't have anything." Would they leave such people out completely, which would result in acute pensioner poverty for future generations? The industry recognises that issue. It opposes compulsion and recognises the need for a safety net.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the Queen's Speech, in particular, the financial provisions. They will be extremely successful. They are part of a

continuing trend, which is providing increased economic well-being and financial security for the many families in my constituency and throughout the country.

Mr. Roger Casale: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on his excellent maiden speech. I was reminded as he spoke of the time just before the general election when I addressed my constituents and gave them an account of why support for the Tory party there, which had historically been strong, was slipping away so quickly. What was eating away at that support in 1996–97 was the great perception among Tory voters of the social and economic costs of Tory mismanagement of the economy; Tory disdain for public services; and the failure to put in place any effective measures to enable people who had been damaged by the deep Tory recessions to rebuild their lives and reconnect themselves with the world of work.
I pointed out that the cost of the social security budget had soared from £50 billion to more than £90 billion. I could have added comments about the soaring levels of public debt, records levels of interest rates and inflation. I asked the voters of Wimbledon to trust Labour to do better. They put their trust in us in May 1997 and Labour has delivered—it has delivered in Britain and in Wimbledon.
On jobs, 325 young people in my constituency have started work thanks to the new deal. On class sizes, no five, six or seven-year-olds are taught in classes of more than 30 in Merton schools. This year, Merton local education authority was among the five most improved education authorities in Britain on educational standards thanks to the local literacy and numeracy strategies.
Hospital waiting lists at St. George's hospital and St Helier hospital are coming down. We have new accident and emergency units and we have a walk-in centre in Tooting. On crime, we have new closed circuit television in Wimbledon town centre. On transport, we have seen the refurbishment of the Northern line. On a recent visit to the magistrates courts I found out that the time between arrest and sentencing is coming down.
On the economy, interest rates and inflation are at all time lows. The economy is the key to these successes and will be the key to doing more in the future. That strong and stable economy, which acts as a platform for our investment in public services' has not come about by chance, it is the result of the economic policies put in place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The independence of the Bank of England, new fiscal rules, prudence in public finances and borrowing only to invest are the golden rules. Some of those issues are complex and technical, but everyone in Wimbledon will understand the difference in the results. They will remember, with fear and bitterness, the Tory legacy of boom and bust, record levels of bankruptcies and the fact that no community was untouched by the scourge or effects of unemployment. They will also remember record levels of interest and mortgage rates, house repossessions, negative equity and rising crime.
That is what we mean by the Tory legacy of boom and bust. The damage to individual lives brought with it the collapse of investment in public services and the infrastructure, which has harmed all of us. In 1996–97,


42p in every £1 was spent on servicing debt and social security payments; the corresponding figure now is 17p. Money is going into the health service. Investment in the health service fell by 0.4 per cent. in 1996–97, but it is 17 per cent. higher in real terms today, and went up by 7.5 per cent. last year.
In education, capital funding for schools has improved. In my constituency, £230 per pupil is provided for capital spending on repairing leaky roofs and windows and decrepit infrastructure, compared with £15 per pupil for capital investment in schools in Merton in 1996–97. I could go on: 16,000 pensioners have been helped by the winter fuel allowance; 500 working families have been helped by the working families tax credit; 11,500 children in Wimbledon have been helped by record increases in child benefit.
In 1996, I asked my constituents what kind of society we wanted to live in. I will be asking them that question again, nearer the election. We have a vision of a strong society, backed by a strong economy. The Tories have no positive vision of the future; Labour does. The Queen's Speech includes further measures that will become fundamental steps towards realising that vision, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition opened the debate on the Gracious Speech on 6 December. Nothing that we have heard from Ministers in the past week has in any way altered our first impression that the Queen's Speech is all spin and no delivery.
The Government are clearing the decks for an early election. Like the Titanic, new and big, new Labour is now sinking on its maiden voyage. All our major public services are in crisis; in rural areas, farm income is at the lowest level since the 1930s; White Papers are catalogued on both urban and rural problems; but nothing appears in the Gracious Speech. The speech is as interesting for what it omits as for what has been prioritised.
Under errors and omissions, we must look at the dear, departed Bills that are a ghost of Government promises, such as the promised consumer Bill. The Government published a White Paper entitled "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" in July 1999. Launching it, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
I am also proposing new legislation to take tough action against fraudsters and powers to deal with new scams quickly.
However, there is no consumer Bill in the Queen's Speech. Labour published a White Paper on licensing reform on 10 April this year, an advance copy of which was briefed to The Times on 13 March, where it appeared as the lead front page story. Again, no legislation was introduced. On urban renewal, there is clearly no sign of a Bill to introduce the policies in the urban White Paper.
What happened to the voting systems? Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament.
That was in the Financial Times in February 1997, but there is not a word about it in what is likely to be the last Session of this Parliament.
There is no Bill on housing. The Government published a Green Paper on housing in April 2000 but, again, they have failed to deliver on their promises. The House will therefore not be surprised that we are somewhat sceptical of the papers that the Government produce in the hope that people will read them and be encouraged to take action. The Government print them, but they do not take any action.
Interestingly, something which we might have expected because it would undoubtedly not have taken up much time in the House, almost certainly having cross-party support, would have been a law on vaccine damage payments. On 27 June 2000, the Secretary of State for Social Security said:
We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity.—[Official Report, 27 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 719.]
Again, that is a glaring omission from the Gracious Speech.
With regard to the rights of victims, new Labour, on page 23 of their document "Because Britain Deserves Better"—that has a somewhat hollow ring four years later—states:
We will ensure that victims are kept fully informed of the progress of their case, and why charges may have to be downgraded or dropped.
The Prime Minister, in his conference speech this year, said:
victims should get full information about the progress of their case … another big project for the second term of a Labour government.
Promises, promises. Unfortunately for new Labour, that second term looks less likely than it might have done four years ago.
Throughout the debate on the Queen's Speech, not just Conservative Members but Labour Members have expressed disappointment at the errors and omissions. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was disappointed that the civil service had no statutory code under which to operate. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) pleaded with the Government on behalf of the steel industry, but his pleas, too, have been ignored by the Government.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said:
Sadly, there has been no continuation of the bonfire of the quangos and agencies.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 57.]
If this had been a Conservative Queen's Speech, there would have been a jolly big bonfire of quangos and agencies.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said:
I am merely reminding the Government that we have to keep in touch with our electorate and with reality.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 69]
[Interruption.] Labour Members seem to regard the words of their colleagues as a joke. I am quoting from Hansard.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said:
The Queen's Speech does not contain a commitment to legislate on housing, transfer of stock and arm's-length companies.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 78.]
In other words, there is great disappointment among those on the Government Benches as well as in the country at the Government's omissions. Those expressions of


disappointment from Labour Members come simply from the first day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. Had I ploughed through Hansard I could doubtless have found four or five more pages of such expressions of disappointment, but 1 think that we have the message from Labour Members. They are disappointed by the Gracious Speech, but, however disappointed they are, they are not half as disappointed as those outside the House are with the Government.
I could talk about many Bills, but I will not do so tonight. However, it is worth mentioning those in the Gracious Speech which are recycled, not least a regulatory reform Bill, one of our little regulars which pops up in each Queen's Speech and nothing is done about it, but here it is again this year. It would be interesting to see whether, in the confines of what we anticipate will be rather a short Session, the Bill will have sufficient priority to complete all its stages before the general election.
The Government flagged up law and order in the Queen's Speech as an important issue. They pledged to introduce a Bill to tackle anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related crime by giving the police power to impose fixed penalty fines. That is yet another pledge that will not be met. The Government said that they would tackle anti-social behaviour and youth crime, but young people are still committing large numbers of criminal offences and communities are terrorised by persistent young offenders. Again, it is all spin and no delivery.
We have seen in previous Sessions of this Parliament the Government's rather paltry attempts to act on that matter, about which there is great concern throughout the country, but under the Government crime rose last year by 190,000 offences, the first rise in six years. In addition, there was a large increase in the number of robberies, despite the Government's promise to reduce them, and the pledge to be tough on crime has been nothing but spin.
The Government have done nothing to increase the number of police officers on the street. There are now 3,000 fewer police officers than when they came to office in 1997. How hollow it seems to say that police officers will apprehend criminals if they are not around when the pubs turn out to deal with the people causing problems.
As I said, we are discussing a recycled issue. Curfew orders were introduced in January 1999, although none have been issued. Only 130 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued. It was interesting to hear one hon. Member say that nine orders had been issued in his constituency. I am sure that he is grateful for that, but the level of crime and people's anxieties warrant more than merely the 130 anti-social behaviour orders that have been issued. The Government have not given the police the support that they deserve. Not only have police numbers been reduced, special constables are also down by 10,000, which puts more strain on people in regular service.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor opened today's debate on the economy, which is an appropriate subject with which to conclude consideration of the Queen's Speech. We have demonstrated clearly that the Government are all spin and no delivery. They have no vision for the next Parliament and can campaign only on their record, which is poor. As we have heard—I know that Labour Members do not like to be reminded of this—the Prime Minister said that he had
no plans to increase tax at all.

However, under the Government the tax burden has risen to 37.8 per cent. of national income—an increase since the election of 2.6 per cent. That is the equivalent of an extra lop in the pound on income tax, which is a tax increase by anybody's standards.
The Government also say that they are committed to increasing spending during the next three years at a much faster rate than the growth of the economy. My hon. Friends have referred to that commitment during today's debate, but it does not seem to matter to the Government, especially the Chancellor, who seems to think that the Government can fall in behind the spin that they have put on our national economy, and believe their own figures.
Additional taxes have been imposed on business, as well a greater burden through the cost of red tape. In today's debate, many hon. Members from all parties have spoken about the economy, different sectors of manufacturing industry and businesses throughout the country. It is, therefore, interesting that Labour Members merely dismiss the extra regulatory and taxation burden that has been imposed on business and its consequences—of course, there are, ultimately, consequences.
The savings ratio is now 3 per cent., which is its lowest level since 1963. I should point out something for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who said that the savings ratio is not much talked about in the pubs in his constituency. His constituents should know, even if he does not, that when the savings ratio drops, it means that they have lost all incentive to put money aside for a rainy day, retirement or ill health. That has an effect on their day-to-day lives.

Mr. Beard: That may not be the explanation at all. Those people may be content and confident of the future, and might not feel the need to lay down savings.

Mrs. Browning: I suspect that, as they are paying more taxes, they have less money in their pockets on a Friday night. When deciding what to do with their residual income, they have too little to think of popping into the building society and putting a bit away on a Saturday morning. That is the reality of life in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and especially in mine, which has a high population of elderly people who are prudent and cautious.
On the subject of prudence, what a marvellous service my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) rendered the House by exposing the fact that Prudence is a fallen woman. We shall all remember his words, and it is up to the Chancellor to save Prudence and restore her reputation because, under his care and patronage, Prudence is in the gutter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) outlined the chaos in the public services and the manufacturing sector, speaking particularly about many organisations and businesses in his constituency that he has visited. On hearing his words, we all reflected on the fact that the same remarks could be made about all our constituencies, no matter which side of the House we sit on.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) spoke not only with the benefit of his experience as a former Treasury and Cabinet Minister, but as a person with experience at the sharp end—working in and representing manufacturing industries. He spoke


about the way that the Government have changed the flexibility of our labour markets, mentioning in particular the fact that not only has the social chapter been introduced under this Government, but that trade unions have received statutory recognition. I can assure him and the House that, when we come to office next year, we shall abolish the statutory recognition of trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Labour Members say "Oh!", but that announcement has been made many times and met with acclaim out there in the real world.
I pay tribute to the contribution of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who spelled out the problem of fuel prices in Northern Ireland and people whizzing to and fro across the border with the Republic to buy petrol because of the pressure that those prices put on them. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and take great pleasure in welcoming him to his place. I congratulate him on his maiden speech, which I hope will be the first of many other speeches, and look forward to engaging with him on some of the more contentious issues that he mentioned. However, I am generous enough to overlook them tonight.
During the debates on the Queen's Speech, Labour Members have flattered us by being more interested in discussing Conservative policies than the Government's legislative programme. It is no surprise that first out of the traps is the Hunting Bill. That shows how the Government prioritise the matters that they think are important to the country: not the big law and order issues or the Children's Commissioner for Wales—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House shakes her head. I have made those remarks publicly several times this week, so has she been shamed into changing the batting order? I would be pleased to hear that she has changed her mind.
The Government have shown their instinct by what they have put at the top of their list in what is probably the last Session of this Parliament: not children, not law and order and not the yob culture, but foxes. That says all that there is to say about the priorities and values of this Administration. Hunting and the gerrymandering of the procedures of the House are, apparently, their only true objectives. The country is six days closer to an election than when the Queen's Speech debate began. I am delighted to have wound-up the debate—I hope without winding up the Government too much—and all I can say to Labour Members is, "Tally ho!"

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We have had a useful series of debates in which many and varied contributions have been made. Given that we are looking back over six days, I cannot mention every Member who has spoken, and I apologise for that, but it is right to refer at once to my three hon. Friends who made maiden speeches. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was gracious enough to say, each contributed extremely well and I am sure that we shall hear from them again, and often. The whole House welcomes them to our proceedings. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) pointed out, the presence of my hon. Friends may be a clear signal of people's concern about the £24 million of cuts that the Conservative party seeks to inflict on every

constituency in the country. That message deserves—and, I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, it will receive—much wider circulation.
Inevitably, the background to the six days of debate has been the condition of our country; the specific focus has been on the proposals in the Queen's Speech. One thing that is clear from the past six days, without any shadow of doubt, is that the Conservative party's briefing is headlined "All spin and no delivery".
The Leader of the Opposition—he was the first to use the phrase, but I think that every Conservative Member has used it at some point—chose to describe some of my hon. Friends as Lobby fodder. As I watched Opposition Members line up to be mown down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought "cannon fodder" might be the right term for them.
Today's proceedings started with an extraordinary speech from the shadow Chancellor. He began by saying that the number of Bills included in the Queen's Speech showed the Government to be devoid of ideas, a point echoed by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). A number of Opposition Members wanted to add more. Over the past few days they have cited measures which they claim the Government promised to introduce but which are not included, and—somehow—a further list of measures which they say they would themselves introduce. The hon. Member for Southend, as we must now learn to call him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Southend, West."] I beg his pardon; I mean the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I am so used to referring to him as the hon. Member for Basildon, which he was until he thought better of it.
Anyway, the hon. Gentleman called for more or less a whole legislative programme of his very own. By a remarkable coincidence, his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) called for the very same programme. Perhaps that too was in the Conservative party briefing.
Having spent all last year criticising us for producing too much legislation, and for the fact that too much was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, this year the Conservative party has criticised us for the opposite. Of course one can never win with the Tories, but that shows why we must all hope that they never do. It would be unwise to expect consistency from a party that, on the one hand, criticises us for investing too much in public services and, on the other—in every speech and in every constituency—demands more.
Both the shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon overlooked an inconvenient fact. Fifteen Bills are mentioned in the Queen's Speech; both of them have clearly forgotten that only 15 were mentioned in the 1992 Queen's Speech. That was a post-election Queen's Speech, relating to an 18-month parliamentary term. Thirteen Bills were included in the 1994 Queen's Speech, and 16 in that of 1995. I do not think we need to hear any more rubbish about the length of the Queen's Speech being an indication of the Government's having run out of steam.
The Queen's Speech conveys a strategic framework—the legislative spine—beyond which there is a full programme of delivery. Given the context, and given many of the speeches we have heard, I think it right to contrast that with the proposals of the Conservative party. It was, after all, only a year or so ago that they announced


their five guarantees. There was the patients guarantee, the parents guarantee, the sterling guarantee, the "can work, must work" guarantee and, of course, the tax guarantee.
A year later, how many of those guarantees survive? As I understand it, none—not one. They all seem to have gone. To lose one guarantee may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two certainly looks like carelessness; but to lose three looks like Conservative party policy. What was that about "all spin and no delivery"? With the Tories, it is all guesswork and no guarantees.
But of course the Tories have always been like it. The shadow Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon both looked back to the golden age when they were so successfully in power. The shadow Chancellor told us that the Tories would increase investment and cut taxes; the right hon. Member for Huntingdon talked of what they did in the 1980s and 1990s. Let me remind the Tories of what they did in the 1980s and 1990s in regard to investment and tax cuts. Yes, there were occasional years in which, on a one-off basis, spending on public services rose; but was there a consistent combination of investment and tax cuts? I do not think so. That did not happen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) ably demonstrated.
The shadow Chancellor said that his party's policy was based on honesty and transparency. In 1983, which was a general election year, the Conservatives cut taxes a month before the election. They cut spending the month after. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that equally well? In 1987, they cut taxes before the election, but the spending that they promised during the election failed to materialise. In 1992, they told us that they could improve public services and cut taxes, but then they gave us 22 tax increases because of the black hole in their finances, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. Because they had boom and bust in the economy, they delivered boom and bust in public services.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon claimed credit for our inheritance. What about theirs? What about the windfall benefits of North sea oil?

Mr. Portillo: Oh no.

Mrs. Beckett: I am so pleased to have upset the shadow Chancellor. He will be even more upset in a second. By 1997, the Tory Government had had the equivalent in today's money of £35 million every single day of the week for a solid 17 years. I shall say that again in case the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten: £35 million every single day for 17 solid years. That was the opportunity given to the Conservatives, but they never delivered a sustained and stable programme of long-term investment in Britain.
When faced with such unpalatable facts, the Opposition cannon fodder abdicate the debate and vaguely claim that it is all spin. It is the argument of a party that has no argument. Neither is their claim borne out by the facts or by the experience of millions of people throughout the country who, under this Government, have witnessed significant change for the better in many things that matter in their lives. They have seen much done, although we all recognise that there is much more still to do.
The shadow Chancellor went even further than saying that it was all spin: he claimed that the Government had failed utterly to improve the position that we inherited or

to perform what we promised. Let us examine that contention. We said that we would restore the public finances. We inherited annual borrowing of £28 billion, and we shall deliver a £6 billion surplus in 2001. We said that we would tackle inflation, and it is now the lowest in the European Union, with the lowest underlying inflation rate in this country since records began in 1975. We said that we would try to tackle unemployment, and it is lower now than it has been for 25 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) quoted a reduction in unemployment in her constituency of 40 per cent., and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) cited a reduction in youth unemployment in his constituency of 86 per cent.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I should be delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why there are now fewer policemen, fewer hospital beds, fewer trains, fewer trains that run on time, and a far worse mess in manufacturing, farming and fishing than there were in 1997?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not quite catch the tail end of the right hon. Gentleman's list, but I assure him that we are conscious of the fact that, in the opening years of this Government, we needed to deal with the debt that we inherited from the Tories. Thus we were unable to put investment into public services as speedily as we had hoped. The right hon. Gentleman talked about fewer hospital beds and fewer nurses, but there would have been a lot more if the Conservative party had not cut the training programmes. We are doing our best to turn the situation around, but it takes three years to train a nurse, seven to train a doctor, and 10 years to provide a road building programme.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Beds.

Mrs. Beckett: Oh, I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me. Yes, indeed, for years we told the Conservatives when they were in government that the health service would suffer as a result of the cuts in beds that they introduced in every specialty. They did not listen then, and they are clearly not listening now.
I shall return to the issue of delivery. We said that we would introduce a national minimum wage, and the Conservative party said that it would cost 2 million jobs. The Liberal Democrats said that it should be a regional minimum wage, because they wanted it to be lower in the south-west. I am not sure how often they remind their constituents of that, but there you go.
The latest figures for the new deal show that more than our target of 250,000 young people have successfully been helped. The new deal and the windfall tax were opposed by both Opposition parties. We said that we would seek economic stability. Interest rates have varied by no more than 2.5 percentage points since May 1997, and now stand at 6 per cent., as they have for the past 10 months. We are now spending an extra £4.5 billion in real terms on pensioners, with more to come, and we have introduced the biggest ever increase in child benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North


(Ms Keeble) reminded us how important that is and the fact that the Conservative party website does not recognise the word "children". Perhaps that is why no Conservative Members mentioned it.
The shadow Chancellor talked about class sizes. He knows that our pledge was to reduce infant class sizes, and that it is being kept. On school standards, this year 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the literacy standard for their age—up 10 per cent.—and 72 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the expected numeracy standard for their age—up 13 per cent.
The in-patient waiting list is, as promised, below the level we inherited—126,000 below—and free eye tests for pensioners have been restored. All those points were made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale). I recommend to the cannon fodder on the Opposition Benches that, next time the words "all spin and no substance" rise to their lips, they reflect for a second on what the Government have already achieved and compare it with their own dismal record.
All those things are the fruits of previous legislative and non-legislative change. When we measure that record against the Opposition's charge of no delivery, we know who is really in a flat spin to know what to say and how much notice to take of what they say about the Queen' s Speech.

Mrs. Browning: I keep the Labour party's pledge card close to my heart. The right hon. Lady has referred to many pledges and prayed in aid the delivery of the pledges that the Government made nearly four years ago. However, is it not true that somebody else has paid the price for the delivery of the pledges that she has mentioned today? When the Government cut the class size for children under seven, children over seven pay with larger classes. When they cut the waiting lists in order to get through a lot of operations in one day, it is not the urgent or ill patients who are treated. The cardiac and cancer patients have to wait their turn while the Government deliver their pledge. That is not delivery; it is cynical, political electioneering. It is cynicism at the expense of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be brief.

Mrs. Beckett: What a lot of nonsense. The hon. Lady talks about cardiac and cancer patients, but I remind her that the principal reason why those patients have to wait is that we do not have enough consultants in those specialties. It takes seven years to train a consultant. The hon. Lady said—it is one of the most stupid points made by Opposition Members—that we have lower class sizes, but that it is paid for by increases in class size elsewhere. That is absolute rubbish. However, at least she conceded that we have lower class sizes. The shadow Chancellor said that none of our pledges had been met. Secondary school class sizes have been rising for 10 years. I do not think that Opposition Members know anything about teaching primary-age children. The notion that somebody who would be teaching Latin, maths or geography in a

secondary school will go and teach reading to infant school children just shows how out of touch they are with the real world.

Mr. Bercow: Why, since January 1999, have 3,000 people, typically sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, been released after only eight? I am referring to the 3,000 drug dealers on whom the Government have gone soft.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman was here to contribute to the Home Office debate. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deal with those points, as he does whenever Opposition Members raise them.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) made an interesting speech, not least when he called for a 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Yet again, he pretended that the Liberal Democrats' 1p on tax would have exceeded our investment record. He must know that that is nonsense. In almost every area, the Government have already delivered more than the Liberal Democrats even dared to offer.
Alongside increased investment, the Government will go forward in the Session with a programme of work centred on improving public services and tackling crime—central not just to our programme, but to the concerns of the people of this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) chairs the crime community partnership in Barnsley. He told us of the success that it had already achieved, with reported crime down by 35 or 36 per cent. in one area. In the Queen's Speech, we are bringing forward a range of measures that are aimed at combating different aspects of crime. They include crime in the streets, cracking down on the yob culture that is defacing and shaming Britain; crime on the roads, with stolen or bodged-up vehicles; crime and drugs; and crime and profits. Too many criminals are big-time professionals living high on the hog on the profits of crime, so there will be draft legislation to ensure that we confiscate their capital and that crime does not pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) drew attention to the need to tackle rogue companies in the private security industry. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) confirmed that reputable companies will welcome that.
Some large-scale crime operates through social security fraud. We have already seen a significant drop in fraud of 6.5 per cent., but, again, we will step up action on that front.
Safety and security are about not just combating crime, but knowing that there is a proper health service for people when they need it. Our Health plan—a plan for the crown jewel of our public services—must deliver the modernisation and reform that can make best use of the unprecedented investment that we are committed to provide. It is the centrepiece of our legislative programme. It will demonstrate the stark choice before the country: that jewel re-cut, gleaming in a modern setting, providing health care for all; or what the Shadow Chancellor called a "mixed economy" health system under the Conservatives, a two-tier health service. Long-term care will be free. I note that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) welcomed that.
We have too often overlooked the need to tackle the causes of ill health. That is why we will bring forward legislation to help to tackle smoking, which kills 120,000 people every year in this country. It is a huge charge on us all, as well as a huge waste of life. With some defined exceptions, tobacco advertising will be banned. Tobacco promotion will be banned. Over time, tobacco sponsorship will be banned.
Although crime and health are the key priorities for the Government, the speech and the programme contain much else: measures for children with special educational and care needs; measures on housing; and an early chance to give a view on the different approaches to hunting with hounds. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the Regulatory Reform Bill, which will give us the power to remove regulation that is accepted to be out of date and unnecessary, but that until now we needed primary legislation to replace.
The Opposition are in theory committed to deregulation, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) told us, in practice,
Conservative participation in the Deregulation Committee is almost nil … on many occasions not a single Conservative Member is present.—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 39.]
Yet again, the theoretical commitment is there, but the practice is absent.
Whatever the Opposition's inadequacies, the key elements in our programme underline the major choices facing Britain: the choice between economic stability and boom and bust; the choice between investment in our public services, including investment over the long term, and cuts in those services; the choice between strong communities and the idea that there is no such thing as society; the choice between leadership and isolation, as we have seen with the Conservative party's policies on Europe. What the Queen's Speech and our programme show above all is that the choice is between a Government who are about investment and planning for the long term and for the whole country, and a party that is hooked on opportunistic bandwagoning and campaigning for cuts in our public services, and is for the few rather than the many.
Those are the choices that lie behind the legislative programme in the Gracious Speech. Those are the choices that face the people of this country and the Members of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 326.

Division No. 6]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Blunt, Crispin


Allan, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brake, Tom


Baker, Norman
Brand, Dr Peter


Baldry, Tony
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burnett, John


Bercow, John
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burstow, Paul





Butterfill, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Letwin, Oliver



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chidgey, David
Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cotter, Brian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Major, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moore, Michael


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Fallon, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fearn, Ronnie
Ottaway, Richard


Flight, Howard
Page, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paice, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Gale, Roger
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sanders, Adrian


Grieve, Dominic
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shepherd, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Harris, Dr Evan
Soames, Nicholas


Harvey, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hayes, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heald, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Streeter, Gary


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Stunell, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Syms, Robert


Horam, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tyler, Paul


Keetch, Paul
Tyrie, Andrew


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Walter, Robert



Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Webb, Steve


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wells, Bowen


Kirkwood, Archy
Whitney, Sir Raymond






Whittingdale, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Peter Luff and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Alexander, Douglas
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Crausby, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cummings, John


Austin, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bailey, Adrian



Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barnes, Harry
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Follett, Barbara


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsrff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Grogan, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)





Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hendrick, Mark
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Merron, Gillian


Hill, Keith
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Mitchell, Austin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kemp, Fraser
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Prosser, Gwyn


Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCabe, Steve
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


MacShane, Denis
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWalter, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


McWilliam, John
Sawford, Phil


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Singh, Marsha






Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Walley, Ms Joan


Soley, Clive
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wills, Michael



Winnick, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wood, Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. Mike Hall and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the question, to add:
'But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to address the urgent need to protect the rights of the individual, reinforce communities and promote enterprise through increased liberalisation, decentralisation and deregulation; call for measures to reduce bureaucracy in schools and in the NHS, and increase professional recruitment and retention; call for a reforming agenda including the prevention of discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion, sex and sexual orientation; urge the introduction of measures to increase the accountability of the police, promote crime prevention and victims' rights, rehabilitate offenders in the community, and establish a Royal Commission to examine the misuse of all drugs; regret the continued failure of the Government to provide for referendums on a fair voting system for the House of Commons and the European Single Currency; deplore the Government's continued neglect of rural occupations and communities; and regret that the timidity of the other measures in the Gracious Speech will do little to assist those who are worst off in society.'.—[Mr. Tyler.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 322.

Division No. 7]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Cotter, Brian


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Baker, Norman
Fearn, Ronnie


Ballard, Jackie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beggs, Roy
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gidley, Sandra


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Harris, Dr Evan


Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burnett, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Keetch, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chidgey, David
Kirkwood, Archy





Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Moore, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Webb, Steve


Oaten, Mark
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Sanders, Adrian
Sir Robert Smith.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Coleman, Iain


Alexander, Douglas
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corston, Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Cox, Tom


Austin, John
Cranston, Ross


Bailey, Adrian
Crausby, David


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Darvill, Keith


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Best, Harold
Dismore, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Donohoe, Brian H


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Doran, Frank


Borrow, David
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Edwards, Huw



Efford, Clive


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Browne, Desmond
Ennis, Jeff


Buck, Ms Karen
Etherington, Bill


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gibson, Dr Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Hendrick, Mark
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Hoey, Kate
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Illsley, Eric
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Norris, Dan


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard, Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Linton, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rogers, Allan


Lock, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCabe, Steve
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Roy, Frank



Ruddock, Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonnell, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mackinlay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan





Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Truswell, Paul


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Todd, Mark
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put:—

The house divided: Ayes 317, Noes 183.

Division No. 8]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick



Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burgon, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Austin, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)



Chaytor, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blackman, Liz
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corbyn, Jeremy


Borrow, David
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cox, Tom


Bradshaw, Ben
Cranston, Ross


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Crausby, David






Cryer, John (Homchunch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warnington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foulkes, George
Lock, David


Galloway, George
Love, Andrew


Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
MacShane, Denis


Grocott, Bruce
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grogan, John
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (SheWeston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mitchell, Austin


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)





Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mudie, George
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Soley, Clive


Norris, Dan
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Stevenson, George


Olner, Bill
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Organ, Mrs Diana
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pike, Peter L
Temple-Morris, Peter


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Pound, Stephen
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vaz, Keith


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
White, Brian


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roy, Frank
Wills, Michael


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sarwar, Mohammad
Worthington, Tony


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Mike Hall and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Allan, Richard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brake, Tom


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brand, Dr Peter


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baker, Norman
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ballard, Jackie
Burnett, John


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Butterfill, John


Bercow, John
Cable, Dr Vincent


Beresford, Sir Paul
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Boswell, Tim







Chidgey, David
Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cotter, Brian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Major, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Donaldson, Jeffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan, Alan
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fearn, Ronnie
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Gale, Roger
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gidley, Sandra
Rendel, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick



Salmond, Alex


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sanders, Adrian


Hague, Rt Hon William
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hammond, Philip
Shepherd, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Harvey, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Stunell, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Jenkin, Bernard
Townend, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tredinnick, David


Keetch, Paul
Trend, Michael



Tyler, Paul


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Tyrie, Andrew



Walter, Robert


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Webb, Steve


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wells, Bowen


Kirkwood, Archy
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Leigh, Edward
Willetts, David


Letwin, Oliver
Willis, Phil


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wilshire, David





Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Yeo, Tim
Mr. Peter Luff and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — Sittings in Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Mr. Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Select Committees (Joint Meetings)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. James Gray be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Sir Paul Beresford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY

Ordered,
That Mr. Edward Leigh be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mrs. Ann Winterton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Minimum Incomes

Dr. Howard Stoate: I beg leave to present a petition for the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. We know that poverty causes ill health, but little evidence exists on the threshold at which that occurs. The petition therefore calls for the research into the minimum incomes needed to provide good health so as to inform Government policy-making. The petition has the support of 28 non-governmental organisations with a membership of more than 7.8 million people and 84 church leaders. It has 6,740 signatures, and those supporting it include the British Medical Association, the National Pensioners Convention, the Trades Union Congress, the UK Public Health Association, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Church of Scotland and many others.
The petition states:
The petition of the Trustees of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and others
Declares that the law as it stands does not require the minimum incomes needed by various categories of person to be taken into account when decisions are taken about taxation and other matters.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to introduce legislation which will provide the Government with information about the minimum incomes which will maintain good health, provide an adequate diet and other essential needs for pregnant women, their babies and toddlers, adults, families with children and pensioners and which will be taken into account when decisions are being made about the levels of local and national taxes, benefits, the minimum wage, working families tax credit, pensions and by the courts when determining the level of fines, the repayment of debts and all deductions from benefits.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Harefield Hospital

Mr. John Wilkinson: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Heart of Harefield campaign in support of Harefield hospital, signed by Councillor Richard Barnes of the Greater London Assembly, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub and 20,000 additional signatories.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons
The Humble Petition of Mr. Richard Barnes and others of like disposition sheweth that the high reputation for cardiothoracic surgery, transplantation, therapy and research at Harefield Hospital, Middlesex demonstrates the excellence of the hospital and its staff wherefore your petitioners pray your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State for Health to keep the said hospital open and to develop its full potential.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Social Services (Peterborough)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House for a few minutes to social services funding in Peterborough council.
I start by making three points by way of background. First, as the Minister knows, there have been problems in the delivery of social services in Peterborough for some considerable time, going back to the old Cambridgeshire county council. Ricky Neave, whose tragic death some years ago shocked the area and, I think, the nation, was my constituent, and his death had serious consequences for social services policy.
Secondly, Cambridgeshire social services, now under the direction of Liz Railton, and Peterborough social services, under the direction of Maureen Allan, have two fine directors who are not only addressing the problems that they inherited, but doing so positively and constructively.
Thirdly, I do not approach the subject in a party political way. I have spent most time developing the case with officers of the council rather than with politicians, and I hope that we can proceed on that basis.
As the Minister knows, there is pressure on the Peterborough social services budget, but that is not unique. The directors of the social services survey in September 2000 showed that the average projected mid-year overcommitment is about 2.1 per cent. and that the major area of overcommitment is attributable to children's services, and that that was true in just over half the authorities which responded to that survey.
The survey further outlined that the pressures in children's services are believed to be, first, the escalating cost of placements for children who are looked after, and, secondly, the rising numbers of those children, at 4 per cent., and particularly those on care orders, at 8 per cent.
Against that general background, the position in Peterborough is that, in this financial year, social services will spend about £30 million—22 per cent. above their standard spending assessment; but the real figures of concern are that spending on children's services will be 114 per cent. above SSA, and, consequently, spending on adult services will be 12 per cent. below SSA.
As in the country, so in Peterborough: the largest pressures come from the number of children in the looked-after category and those on the child protection registers. That is why the experiences arising from the case of Ricky Neave were of some significance. The council has an action plan to drive down those numbers, and the plan has been approved by the Minister's social security inspectors.
It is worth asking at this point why Peterborough has a particular problem. Only seven authorities in the country have a higher proportion of children in all three age bands, and of those seven, Peterborough has the highest number of children looked after except for Manchester. It has the highest number on the children's protection register and it has the lowest SSA for children per capita apart from Milton Keynes.
I have sent evidence to the Minister, which he has generously acknowledged, which shows that the problem in Peterborough is not the high budget but can be related in part to the low SSA, although I happily acknowledge that the two are interrelated.
The high percentage of spend on children in Peterborough when compared with other unitary authorities and shire counties relates to the number of children in the looked-after category and on the child protection register. As the Minister knows, Peterborough has two and a half times as many looked-after children per 10,000 of the population, and nearly three times as many children on the child protection register as Cambridgeshire county council does. Peterborough wants to get those numbers down to the national average; it has set itself a target of achieving that in three years. It needs to do that because it is generally accepted—including by the Minister's inspectors—that the numbers are too high even if the historical reasons for them are understood.
We all want children's services to be provided in the most appropriate circumstances. We are worried that, given the high numbers, what has happened historically may not be in the best interests of all the children. However, getting numbers in Peterborough down to the national average in three years will require a reduction of 15 per cent. per annum in those on the child protection register and a 14 per cent. reduction per annum in the number of looked-after children. The Minister has been in his job long enough—as I was in a previous Government—to understand that those figures constitute an enormous reduction to ask of any local authority that also has to provide services day in, day out.
However, it is important to achieve that aim both for the children and because it represents a potential saving of approximately £2.5 million a year to the local authority. That money could be used not least for adult services. The Minister also knows that attempting to reduce numbers by 15 and 14 per cent. per annum is more difficult because the numbers in the two categories are increasing nationally. The trend cannot be established on a level playing field; it is an uphill task.
I assure the Minister, with the authority of the director of social services and the chief executive of the local authority, that the council is determined to act. It has already commissioned a report from the district auditor and it has produced a phased recovery plan for reduced spend on children's services over the three years. I shall not bore the Minister with details—we do not have time to go into them tonight—save to say that the plan centres on three objectives: to improve partnerships, to target resources better and, importantly, to re-examine the criteria that bring children into the system in the first place.
The district auditor's study shows that Peterborough's unit cost for looked-after children is below the average for comparable authorities by more than 15 per cent. I hope that the Minister will examine that figure; it is significant because it suggests that the problem stems from the historical increase in the number of children rather than gross inefficiency or maladministration in the department or the council.
To achieve the goal that it has set itself and which is in line with what the Minister would wish, the council will need some short-term, transitional financial assistance.

The Minister will know that the council already plans to reduce spending on services. Indeed, it faces a certain amount of economic pressure, even in this financial year. The money being taken out of services is already significant, but the council faces having to take out even more if it is to address the problem. I know that he will want to bear in mind the improving picture for the delivery of social services in Peterborough, the new practices and the new personnel that Maureen Allan has put in place. All of us in Peterborough are grateful for the support, encouragement and constructive advice that his SSIs have given to the council during the various examinations. Everybody in Peterborough is pleased that the council's performance is improving and that that improvement has been recognised by the inspectors.
If the council is to meet the objective of getting the figures for those two sets of children down to the national average, it will need to find, in addition to all its other spending, about £2.7 million over the next three years. As the Minister will understand, with spending on children at 114 per cent. above SSA and spending on adults 12 per cent. below, adult services are bearing the brunt of the diminution in services. He also knows that around the country the pressures on departments that provide social services for adults are increasing.
In the next financial year, the council can look to a cash increase in its social services SSA of 1.1 per cent. The Minister will tell me, as do the official figures, that it will receive a 4.5 per cent. increase. I want him to know that we both understand that that is calculated on a reduced base because the Government have not yet made apparent what the care leaver's specific grant will be. A certain amount of crucial expenditure hangs on that grant.
I do not want the Minister to give me a definitive response. Dare I say that I hope he will not do so? I hope, however, that he accepts the tone in which I have put the case and ask him to reflect on the facts and the evidence that have been put before him. The council needs £2.7 million over three years to get the numbers down in those two categories of children. It is determined to achieve that, if it can have the resources to do so. It has asked me to tell him that if he is able to find £1.3 million, tapering over three years, it will find the rest, although that will be extremely difficult. That brings me back to the care leaver's specific grant. The Government have not yet announced that grant. Should the Minister want to help, it would be a suitable vehicle for addressing the issue.
I hope the Minister recognises that I have not made a plea for an increase in the SSA. I have not argued that the Government have treated Peterborough unfairly; nor have I made a party political case. A specific historical problem needs to be addressed for the benefit of the children and the services for adults. The council is determined to address the problem, but it will need short-term help. That is the case that I leave with him. I hope that he will go away, think about it and look favourably on Peterborough's claim when the care leaver's specific grant announcements are made.

11 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on securing a debate on the funding of social services


in Peterborough, which is covered by part of his constituency. I also associate myself with his remarks about Maureen Allan and Liz Railton, both of whom are doing an excellent job as directors of social services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his appreciation of the work of the social services inspectorate in Peterborough. It is doing a good job, and is working closely and, I think, successfully with the local authority—as it has for some time—in trying to address the complex and difficult issues to which the right hon. Gentleman so skilfully drew attention.
Given the right hon. Gentleman's experience as a former social services Minister, I am sure that he will agree with me, at least in part, when I say that social services perform crucial functions. Those functions include child protection, on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt; but social services also have a role in caring for elderly and disabled people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that they also help us to confront some of the consequences of social exclusion and deprivation which, sadly, still scar the lives of many of our fellow citizens.
Those tasks involve big responsibilities. I believe it is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that the services are properly resourced, and operate within a legal and policy framework that successfully promotes independence and opportunity and delivers the high standards that the public have a right to expect. I can say confidently that the Government have acted both to increase the overall resources available to social services departments, and to set out clearly the new framework within which social care should be delivered.
I shall deal with both those issues in more detail later, as well as responding to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised—quite fairly—about the situation in Peterborough. Let me begin by dealing with his concern about social services funding. The right hon. Gentleman—again, very fairly and accurately—tried to explain the historical situation, and I shall not quibble with his description of events; but let me say, as he would expect me to, that the Government have given Peterborough council substantial extra resources in recent years.
The overall level of resources provided for social services this year increased by 4.4 per cent., which is significantly more than the rate of inflation. That followed a larger increase of 6.1 per cent. in the previous year, 1999–2000. On a like-for-like basis, social services resources for Peterborough will, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rise by 4.5 per cent. next year. I shall explain the arithmetic in a moment.
Those extra resources form part of a wider national picture, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The spending review announced earlier this year provides increases in resources for councils with social services responsibilities of, on average, 3.4 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years. That compares very favourably with an average real-terms growth in social services resources of just 0.1 per cent. per annum during the lifetime of the last Parliament.
Next year—2001–02—the council's core resources for personal social services will increase by 4.5 per cent. Peterborough will also gain from considerable increases in new and on-going special grants. In particular, the children's grant—which we have yet to confirm—will

increase significantly next year. Peterborough's mental health grant will increase by 12 per cent. this year, and the carers' grant payable to the council will increase by 40 per cent. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that those are substantial increases, which will help the council to improve its services in important respects.
The right hon. Gentleman was mainly concerned about children's services, but at the end of his speech he mentioned the implications of overspending on those services for adult services. That is a fair point; but he probably knows that the Secretary of State for Health announced on 4 December that £100 million of new resources—on top of the local government financial settlement—would be made available to social services next year. That money is being earmarked for improvements and expansion in social care and rehabilitation services for older people. Peterborough will benefit from an additional £261,000 as a result of that extra funding.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed his concerns about the funding arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and his uncertainty over how much Peterborough council will receive. The Act, which seeks to improve the life chances of young people living in and leaving care, has been widely welcomed and enjoyed cross-party support in this House and in the other place.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we recently decided to implement those changes from October next year, rather than from April, which was our original intention. We were asked to defer implementation of the legislation by the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and by leading children's organisations. That will give local authorities and their partner agencies the opportunity to prepare properly for implementation.
The provisions of the Act will be funded through a ring-fenced budget to ensure that those very vulnerable young people, who in the past have often had very little support, receive the services that they need and deserve. A ring-fenced budget was proposed in the consultation paper that preceded the publication of the new legislation. All the voluntary sector organisations that responded to the consultation and an overwhelming majority of local councils supported the proposal as the surest way of guaranteeing that appropriate resources reach that group of young people.
The budget will consist of the money currently spent on services for such young people by local authorities and the Department of Social Security together with new resources from the children's grant. Implementing the Act in October rather than April has required changes to be made to the ring-fenced grant. It needs only to cover half the next financial year, not the whole of it. We intend to return to local councils through their standard spending assessments half the funds which were to be transferred into that new ring-fenced grant.
I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that those resources will still be available to support services for these young people. They are not disappearing into some black corner of local government finance, although there are plenty of those. This change has caused some delay in announcing local councils' share of the children's grant, and I regret any uncertainty that that has caused local councils such as Peterborough. I can tell the right


hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is with us, that the Government expect to announce revised SSAs and grant figures for local authorities in the very near future.
I am obviously aware that Peterborough is experiencing budget pressures in its children's services. The right hon. Gentleman explained the reasons for those pressures very clearly. In 1998–99, the council inherited a spending figure that was 19 per cent. above the standard spending assessment for children's services. In 1999–2000, that had risen to 21 per cent., and the projection for next year is that it will be about 22 per cent.
The problems faced by the council are not entirely due to its financial inheritance. The need to improve financial management, service planning and decision making in children's services also play a part. The council has faced a rising cost from children's placements—the right hon. Gentleman referred to that—that have increasingly been made outside Peterborough council's own area. I understand that in the near future it will carry out an urgent best value review of that area of its work, which will consider the whole range of children's placements, and that it intends to develop professional fostering placements, particularly for difficult to place children. That should enable the council to reduce the use of placements away from Peterborough.
The council has also proposed a budget recovery plan that combines the reduction in the number of out-of-city placements with improved care planning to reduce the overall number of looked-after children, particularly children who are living in their own homes. From a peak figure of 398 looked-after children in May 2000, the current figure has reduced by 40, which is quite a substantial decrease in a relatively short period—almost 10 per cent.
I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that Peterborough is not treated unfairly by the funding system. I know that he was at pains to say that that was not the essence of his argument, but it is worth pointing out that the SSA system is designed to treat all councils equitably. When calculating SSAs, the Government take account of the population, social structure and other characteristics of an authority. The methodology is applied uniformly to all authorities using data that have been compiled consistently across all authorities.
I should also like to mention that the special and specific grants we make available to local councils are allocated on the basis of formulae—often the SSAs—and treat each local council in a similar fashion. The right hon. Gentleman may also like to know that Peterborough has been a net beneficiary of all the major changes to the SSA formula that we have introduced since 1997.
I think that it would be wrong for me to depart from this approach by promising to make a special payment to one council, which could, in the final resort, only be made at the expense of other authorities. I am not sure that I can hold out any prospect for the right hon. Gentleman that I will be able to agree to his suggestion that additional funding of £1.3 million over three years should be made available to the city council.
That is not to imply that the Government are content with how the SSA system works. Our Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" acknowledges

serious weaknesses with the SSA system, and proposes ways to improve the grant distribution. The consultation period on those proposals has now ended, and the Government are considering the best way forward.
On the quality of children's services, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Peterborough has been the subject of special measures since 1997. That is the result of an adverse SSI inspection of child protection services in Cambridgeshire following the death of Ricky Neave, to whom he referred. After the local government reorganisation in 1998, Peterborough was required to implement the inherited action plan from Cambridgeshire.
Follow-up inspections in March and October confirm that Peterborough social services is now delivering improved protection for children. Quality and consistency are still problematic, but the council is showing substantial progress, and I want to congratulate all those who are working so hard to improve children's services in Peterborough. It does, however, need to improve its quality, personnel and financial management strategies to continue to get the best out of all the resources available to it. The council is currently being reviewed jointly by the SSI and the Audit Commission to determine how well the council serves local people in its social services. The report will be available in spring next year and will have more to say on those issues. When the report is received, the status of special measures will need to be reviewed.
The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that on 10 October I announced the formation of a new adoption and permanence taskforce to help councils achieve a step change in the performance of their adoption services. One of the first visits of the taskforce—last week—was to Peterborough to help the social services authority draw up measures to improve its performance on adoption.
When I met the right hon. Gentleman about a year ago to discuss the situation in Peterborough, he raised particular concerns about recruitment to vacant posts in Peterborough's children's services. Peterborough employs a high number of agency staff, who are very high cost, because of its difficulty in recruiting and retaining permanent staff. That is one of the factors to which the right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention. He is also right—I am grateful to him for saying this—that my social services inspectors have worked closely with Peterborough on new approaches to recruitment, which have been successful. A new head of service, a new deputy head of service, a newlooked-after children's manager and an intake and assessment manager have been appointed recently. That will all add to the management strength of Peterborough city council.
While those new appointments will strengthen the management arrangements for children's services, work still needs to continue to get in place the required level of social workers and senior practitioners. There is currently a 24 per cent. vacancy level in respect of those posts, and the right. hon. Gentleman and I are concerned about that.
The Department is in continuing discussion with the Local Government Association and others about how we can help local government and other organisations to recruit and retain staff in this important area of our welfare services. We are also making an extra £41 million available to councils in order to provide financial support for training social workers from next year. I hope that that will make a difference to the general difficulties that are experienced by some authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman's concerns have been largely about children's social services in Peterborough, and I understand that. It is worth recording, however, that in relation to adult services, Peterborough has no delayed discharges through funding problems, nor any due to home care capacity. Its best value review of home care has led to more of that service being commissioned from the independent sector. Independent sector home care hours have increased by over 2,800 per week, which has brought savings of £390,000 to the local council, which have been deployed into more intensive care packages supporting people at home.
The council has completed a best value review of residential care leading to active consideration about the future of a number of their own directly provided homes. That is linked to proposals to make more use of sheltered accommodation with an anticipated saving next year of around £110,000.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to outline our improved financial support to Peterborough and to acknowledge the council's positive handling of its problems in recruitment matters, and its strategies to get a better grip of its children's services budget. Peterborough should draw lessons from the improved use of resources in adult services where its early best value review work has had a positive impact. Applying best value strategies to its children's services will be important to its overall efficiency and quality. We shall continue to scrutinise the quality of the council's services through the work of the SSI and the Audit Commission.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Deferred Divisions

FISHERIES: TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCHES AND QUOTAS 2001
That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 28th November relating to the fixing of fishing opportunities for 2001 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; recognises that a number of fish stocks have fallen to particularly low levels; and supports the Government's intention to sustain stocks for the future, and assist recovery of those stocks which are in danger of collapse, while negotiating the best possible fishing opportunities for UK fishermen.
The House divided: Ayes 437, Noes 86.

Division No. 2]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Burgon, Colin


Allan, Richard
Burnett, John


Allen, Graham
Burstow, Paul


Amess, David
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Casale, Roger


Austin, John
Caton, Martin


Bailey, Adrian
Cawsey, Ian


Baker, Norman
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Ballard, Jackie



Banks, Tony
Chaytor, David


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Church, Ms Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Begg, Miss Anne



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Bercow, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coleman, Iain


Bermingham, Gerald
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Cooper, Yvette


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corston, Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cotter, Brian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cran, James


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cranston, Ross


Borrow, David
Crausby, David


Boswell, Tim
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brady, Graham
Darvill, Keith


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Breed, Colin
Davidson, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llnelli)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Day, Stephen


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet






Denham, John
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Dismore, Andrew
Howells, Dr Kim


Dobbin, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Doran, Frank
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hurst, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Hutton, John


Drew, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Illsley, Eric


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jamieson, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jenkin, Bernard


Edwards, Huw
Jenkins, Brian


Efford, Clive
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ennis, Jeff



Etherington, Bill
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Evans, Nigel



Faber, David
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Fabricant, Michael
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Flint, Caroline
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Follett, Barbara
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Keeble, Ms Sally


Foster, Don (Bath)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Keetch, Paul


Fox, Dr Liam
Kemp, Fraser


Gale, Roger
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gardiner, Barry
Khabra, Piara S


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kidney, David


Gerrard, Neil
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gibson, Dr Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gidley, Sandra
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kingham, Ms Tess


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Kirkwood, Archy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gray, James
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Green, Damian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Greenway, John
Lammy, David


Grieve, Dominic
Laxton, Bob


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Leigh, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lepper, David


Grocott, Bruce
Levitt, Tom


Grogan, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Hain, Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Linton, Martin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Livsey, Richard


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hanson, David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lock, David


Harvey, Nick
Love, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Luff, Peter


Healey, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McCabe, Steve


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hendrick, Mark
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Heppell, John



Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hinchliffe, David
McDonnell, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McFall, John


Hoey, Kate
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
McIsaac, Shona


Hope, Phil
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mackinlay, Andrew


Horam, John
McLoughlin, Patrick





McNulty, Tony
Rendel, David


MacShane, Denis
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter, Tony
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


McWilliam, John
Rogers, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rooney, Terry


Major, Rt Hon John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallaber, Judy
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Maples, John
Rowlands, Ted


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruddock, Joan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
St Aubyn, Nick



Salmond, Alex


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Salter, Martin


Martlew, Eric
Sanders, Adrian


Mates, Michael
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Savidge, Malcolm


May, Mrs Theresa
Sawford, Phil


Meale, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Merron, Gillian
Sedgemore, Brian


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shaw, Jonathan


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mitchell, Austin
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Singh, Marsha


Moore, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mudie, George
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spicer, Sir Michael


Norman, Archie
Spring, Richard


Norris, Dan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Olner, Bill
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Ottaway, Richard
Stunell, Andrew


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Swayne, Desmond


Pendry, Tom
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pound, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Dawn
Todd, Mark


Prior, David
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Townend, John


Purchase, Ken
Trend, Michael


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Truswell, Paul


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Randall, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tynan, Bill






Vaz, Keith
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Willis, Phil


Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Walter, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ward, Ms Claire
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Watts, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Webb, Steve
Wood, Mike


Wells, Bowen
Woodward, Shaun


White, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Wicks, Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Luff, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Beggs, Roy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bercow, John
Madel, Sir David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Major, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Maples, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Mates, Michael


Brady, Graham
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Norman, Archie


Butterfill, John
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard



Prior, David


Chope, Christopher
Randall, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Day, Stephen
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
St Aubyn, Nick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan Smith, Iain
Shepherd, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Faber, David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Fox, Dr Liam
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gale, Roger
Thompson, William


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Trend, Michael


Gray, James
Walter, Robert


Green, Damian
Wells, Bowen


Greenway, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Grieve, Dominic
Whittingdale, John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Hawkins, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Horam, John
Yeo, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jenkin, Bemard



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)



Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Question accordingly agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

That this house, at its rising on Thursday 21st December, do till Monday 8th January 2001.

The house divided: Ayes 478, Noes 8.

Division No. 3]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allan, Richard
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allen, Graham
Caplin, Ivor


Amess, David
Casale, Roger


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Chaytor, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chidgey, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Church, Ms Judith


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clapham, Michael


Austin, John
Clappison, James


Bailey, Adrian
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Norman
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Baldry, Tony



Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beard, Nigel
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Begg, Miss Anne
Clwyd, Ann


Beggs, Roy
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Collins, Tim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Colman, Tony


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Jean


Benton, Joe
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cousins, Jim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curry, Rt Hon David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dalyell, Tam


Blunt, Crispin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brake, Tom
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brand, Dr Peter
Denham, John


Breed, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Burgon, Colin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burnett, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burns, Simon
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burstow, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Butterfill, John
Efford, Clive






Ellman, Mrs Louise
Hutton, John


Ennis, Jeff
Iddon, Dr Brian


Etherington, Bill
Illsley, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Fabricant, Michael
Jamieson, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Jenkin, Bernard


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Fisher, Mark
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma



Flint, Caroline
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fox, Dr Liam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gale, Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gardiner, Barry
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Garnier, Edward
Keeble, Ms Sally


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Gerrard, Neil
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Gibb, Nick
Keetch, Paul


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kemp, Fraser


Gidley, Sandra
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gill, Christopher
Key, Robert


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Khabra, Piara S


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kidney, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kilfoyle, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Gray, James
Kingham, Ms Tess


Green, Damian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Greenway, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Grieve, Dominic
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Grocott, Bruce
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Grogan, John
Lammy, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Lansley, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Laxton, Bob


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Leigh, Edward


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lepper, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Letwin, Oliver


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Levitt, Tom


Hanson, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Hawkins, Nick
Lidington, David


Heald, Oliver
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Linton, Martin


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Livsey, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Lock, David


Hendrick, Mark
Loughton, Tim


Heppell, John
Love, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Luff, Peter


Hinchliffe, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Hoey, Kate
McCabe, Steve


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hope, Phil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hopkins, Kelvin



Horam, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McDonnell, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
McFall, John


Howells, Dr Kim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hoyle, Lindsay
McIsaac, Shona


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hurst, Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick





McNulty, Tony
Redwood, Rt Hon John


MacShane, Denis
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rendel, David


McWalter, Tony
Robathan, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Madel, Sir David



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Major, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Mallaber, Judy
Rogers, Allan


Maples, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rooney, Terry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Martlew, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Mates, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
St Aubyn, Nick


May, Mrs Theresa
Salter, Martin


Meale, Alan
Sanders, Adrian


Merron, Gillian
Sarwar, Mohammad


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Savidge, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Sawford, Phil


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


Mitchell, Austin
Sheerman, Barry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moore, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Moran, Ms Margaret
Shepherd, Richard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Singh, Marsha


Mudie, George
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Norris, Dan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


O'Neill, Martin
Spicer, Sir Michael


Organ, Mrs Diana
Spring, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Palmer, Dr Nick
Steinberg, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Pendry, Tom
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickles, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Streeter, Gary


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pollard, Kerry
Stunell, Andrew


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Swayne, Desmond


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Pound, Stephen
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Prior, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Thompson, William


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Randall, John
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don






Townend, John
Wicks, MaIcolm


Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Truswell, Paul
Willetts, David


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Willis, Phil


Tyler, Paul
Winnick, David


Tynan, Bill
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Vaz, Keith
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wood, Mike


Walley, Ms Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Walter, Robert
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Worthington, Tony


Waterson, Nigel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David
Wright Tony (Cannock)


Webb, Steve
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan



Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John



NOES


Chope, Christopher
Salmond, Alex


Harvey, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Llwyd, Elfyn



MacIean, Rt Hon David



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)



Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Question accordingly agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
12th and 19th January, 16th February, 2nd March, 4th May, 22nd and 29th June, 6th and 13th July and 19th October 2001.
The House divided: Ayes 478, Noes 5.

Division No. 4]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Alexander, Douglas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Allan, Richard
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Berry, Roger


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Best, Harold


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Betts Clive


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blackman, Liz


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blunkett Rt Hon David


Austin, John
Blunt, Crispin


Bailey, Adrian
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Norman
Borrow, David


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Ballard, Jackie



Banks, Tony
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brady, Graham


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brake, Tom


Begg, Miss Anne
Brand, Dr Peter


Beggs, Roy
Breed, Colin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter





Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dowd, Jim



Drew, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Drown, Ms Julia


Browne, Desmond
Duncan Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Burnett, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burns, Simon
Ennis, Jeff


Burstow, Paul
Etherington, Bill


Butler, Mrs Christine
Evans, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fabricant, Michael


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fieid, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Caton, Martin
Flynn, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Barbara


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek



Foster, Don (Bath)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Church, Ms Judith
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Clapham, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Clappison, James
Gale, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Garnier, Edward



George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibb, Nick


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gidley, Sandra


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gill, Christopher


Clelland, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clwyd, Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A


Coffey, Ms Ann
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coleman, Iain
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Collins, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Colman, Tony
Gray, James


Cooper, Yvette
Green, Damian


Corbett, Robin
Greenway, John


Corston, Jean
Grieve, Dominic


Cotter, Brian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cran, James
Grocott, Bruce


Cranston, Ross
Grogan, John


Crausby, David
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hain, Peter


Cummings, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hanson, David


Darvill, Keith
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Harvey, Nick


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hawkins, Nick


Davidson, Ian
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Healey, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Day, Stephen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hendrick, Mark


Denham, John
Heppell, John


Dismore, Andrew
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dobbin, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Hoey, Kate


Donohoe, Brian H
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Doran, Frank
Hope, Phil


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hopkins, Kelvin






Horam, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
McDonnell, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
McFall, John


Howells, Dr Kim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Hoyle, Lindsay
McIsaac, Shona


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hurst, Alan
MacIean, Rt Hon David


Hutton, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Iddon, Dr Brian
McNulty, Tony


Illsley, Eric
MacShane, Denis


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Mactaggart, Fiona


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
McWalter, Tony


Jamieson, David
McWilliam, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Madel, Sir David


Jenkins, Brian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Major, Rt Hon John


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mallaber, Judy


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John



Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mates, Michael


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Meale, Alan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Merron, Gillian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Keetch, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Kemp, Fraser
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Miller, Andrew


Key, Robert
Mitchell, Austin


Khabra, Piara S
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kidney, David
Moore, Michael


Kilfoyle, Peter
Moran, Ms Margaret


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kingham, Ms Tess



Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Kirkwood, Archy
Mudie, George


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Mullin, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Lammy, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Lansley, Andrew
Norman, Archie


Laxton, Bob
Norris, Dan


Leigh, Edward
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lepper, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Letwin, Oliver
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Levitt, Tom
Olner, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
O'Neill, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Lidington, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Linton, Martin
Page, Richard


Livsey, Richard
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pearson, Ian


Lock, David
Pendry, Tom


Loughton, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Love, Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


Luff, Peter
Pike, Peter L


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Plaskitt, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Pollard, Kerry


McCabe, Steve
Pond, Chris


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pope, Greg


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Pound, Stephen





Powell, Sir Raymond
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Primarolo, Dawn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prior, David
Stunell, Andrew


Prosser, Gwyn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Swayne, Desmond


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Syms, Robert


Quinn, Lawrie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Randall, John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rendel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Todd, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Townend, John


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trend, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Truswell, Paul


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tynan, Bill


Salmond, Alex
Tyrie, Andrew


Salter, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sarwar, Mohammad
Walley, Ms Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Walter, Robert


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waterson, Nigel


Sedgemore, Brian
Watts, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Webb, Steve


Sheerman, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
White, Brian


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shepherd, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Singh, Marsha
Willetts, David


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woolas, Phil


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George



Stoate, Dr Howard



NOES


Chope, Christopher
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Llwyd, Elfyn



Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Question accordingly agreed to.

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) AcT 1993

That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
The House divided: Ayes 470, Noes 13.

Division No. 5]



AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Burgon, Colin


Allan, Richard
Burns, Simon


Allen, Graham
Burstow, Paul


Amess, David
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Casale, Roger


Austin, John
Caton, Martin


Bailey, Adrian
Cawsey, Ian


Baker, Norman
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Baldry, Tony



Ballard, Jackie
Chaytor, David


Banks, Tony
Chidgey, David


Barnes, Harry
Church, Ms Judith


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clappison, James


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Begg, Miss Anne



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Clwyd, Ann


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Iain


Berry, Roger
Collins, Tim


Best, Harold
Colman, Tony


Betts, Clive
Cooper, Yvette


Blackman, Liz
Corbett, Robin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corston, Jean


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cotter, Brian


Blunt, Crispin
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cran, James


Borrow, David
Cranston, Ross


Boswell, Tim
Crausby, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Dalyell, Tarn


Brake, Tom
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brand, Dr Peter
Darvill, Keith


Breed, Colin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davidson, Ian



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Browne, Desmond
Day, Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dean, Mrs Janet





Denham, John
Hinchliffe, David


Dismore, Andrew
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dobbin, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Donohoe, Brian H
Hope, Phil


Doran, Frank
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Horam, John


Dowd, Jim
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Drew, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Drown, Ms Julia
Hoyle, Lindsay


Duncan Smith, Iain
Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Hurst, Alan


Edwards, Huw
Hutton, John


Efford, Clive
Iddon, Dr Brian


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Illsley, Eric


Ennis, Jeff
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Etherington, Bill
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Evans, Nigel
Jamieson, David


Faber, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Fabricant, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Fearn, Ronnie
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma



Flint, Caroline
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Follett, Barbara
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Foster, Don (Bath)



Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Fox, Dr Liam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gale, Roger
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Gardiner, Barry
Keeble, Ms Sally


Garnier, Edward
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Gerrard, Neil
Keetch, Paul


Gibb, Nick
Kemp, Fraser


Gibson, Dr Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gidley, Sandra
Key, Robert


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Khabra, Piara S


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kidney, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kilfoyle, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Gray, James
Kingham, Ms Tess


Green, Damian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Greenway, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Grieve, Dominic
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Grocott, Bruce
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Grogan, John
Lammy, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Lansley, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Laxton, Bob


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Leigh, Edward


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lepper, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Letwin, Oliver


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Levitt, Tom


Hanson, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Harvey, Nick
Lidington, David


Hawkins, Nick
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Heald, Oliver
Linton, Martin


Healey, John
Livsey, Richard


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Loyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Llwyd, Elfyn


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Lock, David


Hendrick, Mark
Loughton, Tim


Heppell, John
Love, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Luff, Peter






Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
O'Brien, Bill (Notmanton)


McAvoy, Thomas
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


McCabe, Steve
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Olner, Bill


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ottaway, Richard


McDonnell, John
Page, Richard


McFall, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Pearson, Ian


McIsaac, Shona
Pendry, Tom


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Pike, Peter L


Mackinlay, Andrew
Plaskitt, James


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Pollard, Kerry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Pond, Chris


McNulty, Tony
Pope, Greg


MacShane, Denis
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Mactaggart, Fiona
Pound, Stephen


McWalter, Tony
Powell, Sir Raymond


McWilliam, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Madel, Sir David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Primarolo, Dawn


Major, Rt Hon John
Prior, David


Mallaber, Judy
Prosser, Gwyn


Maples, John
Purchase, Ken


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Quinn, Lawrie


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rammell, Bill


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Randall, John


Martlew, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Mates, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Rendel, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Rooney, Terry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Miller, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mitchell, Austin
Rowlands, Ted


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Ruddock, Joan


Moore, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
St Aubyn, Nick


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Salmond, Alex


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mudie, George
Savidge, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Sawford, Phil


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Sedgemore, Brian


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Shaw, Jonathan


Nicholls, Patrick
Sheerman, Barry


Norman, Archie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Norris, Dan
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian





Short, Rt Hon Clare
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolveiti'ton SE)


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tynan, Bill



Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Soley, Clive
Walley, Ms Joan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walter, Robert


Spellar, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Watts, David


Spring, Richard
Webb, Steve


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steinberg, Gerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stoate, Dr Howard
Whittingdale, John


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm,


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Swayne, Desmond
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Syms, Robert
Winnick, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Timms, Stephen
Yeo, Tim


Tipping, Paddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don



Townend, John



Trend, Michael



NOES


Beggs, Roy
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burnett, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Chope, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Thompson, William


Gill, Christopher



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Johnson Smith,

Question accordingly agreed to.